' By the present order I propose to dispose of both the Writ Petitions Nos.1980 and 1981 of 1994, writ petitioner being one and the same person,, Muhammad Yousaf, and the factual and legal position being also identical.
2. Muhammad Yousaf petitioner's father, Fazal Din son of Nizam Din had been allotted 200 Kanals of land, under the Bara Scheme, in Chak No,111/15-L, Tehsil Mian Channu, District Khanewal. Under the conditions of lease, 50% of the land on development was to be declared as "Wanda Sarkar", and was to be surrendered in favour of the Government. This was duly done by the lessee, following whose death, the land continued to be in possession of the petitioner. It is so pleaded by him. It was subsequently included in the schedule prepared for 15-year Lease Scheme, introduced in the year 1991. The petitioner claims to have secured allotment of the land. In 1992 however, the Board of Revenue decided to sell such lands through private treaty to the occupants, at the prevailing market-price plus 10% surcharge. The petitioner approached the District Collector, and a favourable report was made to the Board. Of Revenue. His possession also was protected through a stay order.
3. The District Collector determined the price of disputed land as Rs,3,28,000, which the petitioner was directed to deposit with the Colony Assistant. The petitioner claims to have made payment of an amount of two lac rupees, through a cheque, and the remaining Rs,1,28,000 in cash, to the Colony Assistant. He names CA. As Muhammad Ilyas. Here the mischief starts. Colony Assistant is a Revenue Officer, whereas Muhammad Ilyas was a clerk; and again even if he was an officer, he had no authority to receive the money for depositing it in his personal account. In their comments, S.H.O. Police Station, Saddar, Mian Channu and the S.P., Khanewal have made a revelation .That Muhammad Ilyas was an ex-clerk of the Revenue Department and Muhammad Yousaf petitioner himself was an ex-Assistant of the D.C. Office, Khanewal. Both have been described as cheats of the first order, experts in matters of forgery and fabrication. They are alleged to have master- minded the whole exercise, and manufactured the documents, applying the latest techniques.
When the foul play was detected, the Colony Assistant (the Officer, not Muhammad Ilyas, an ex- official) reported the same to .The police and two cases, one after the other, were registered against these persons, vide F.I.Rs, Nos.92 and 125, dated 23-3-1994 and 5-4-1994, respectively, under section 406/420/468/471, P.P.C, at Police Station Sadar Mian Channu, District Khanewal, the accused persons being Muhammad Yousaf, Muhammad Ilyas, Muhammad Anwar, Alam Sher, etc.
2. The District Collector, the S.P. And the S.H.O. Concerned have furnished their comments.
According to the District Collector, half of the land, after the stipulated period, had to be surrendered as share of the State. Muhammad Yousaf however, remained in possession of the land and applied for grant of proprietary rights, which were refused, for the simple reason that the land was situate within the prohibitory zone. The petitioner applied and was allotted an alternative piece of land in Chak No,84/15-L. Despite that he did not deliver possession of the land, situate in Chak No,111/15-L, and continued utilizing the fruit of both the lots. He applied to the Board of Revenue for having the "Wanda-Sarkar" also allotted in his name, under the 15 years Scheme, concealing the fact of his alternative allotment. The petitioner did not deposit the sale price in the Government treasury and maneouvred to forge a sale-deed, on getting in league with Muhammad Ilyas, a junior clerk in the office of the D.C., Khanewal. He also succeeded in getting the same registered, but subsequently this fraud was detected, and an inquiry was held, in consequence of which the land was resumed by the State and criminal cases were ordered to be registered against these cheats. If, as is alleged, the petitioner, with his accomplices, has defrauded the Government and misappropriated lacs of rupees, he must be proceeded against. At least the allegation is that the petitioner has grabbed very valuable landed property, which is State land, and divested the Government of sixteen lacs of rupees. Through fraudulent means and forged documents, which is a very serious charge.
3. The petitioner must not grudge to face the charge but should instead endeavour to displace it, if he is actually innocent, as he pleads. How can this Court assume the role of the investigating agency and the trial Court, and at this early stage give a verdict in favour of the petitioner, being absolutely. Innocent in the matter. I, for one, am wholly averse to extending any kind of indulgence to people who are engaged in swindling, and who thrive on ill-gotten properties, public as also private. The petitioner, in all probability, appears to have come to this Court with unclean hands and with a sinister background. There is no justification whatever to protect him from criminal prosecution, in the manner he seeks. He must join the investigation, and if he is really not at fault, he shall have to strive to establish his innocence. If not in investigation, he will be able to prove his bona fides and innocence in the matter, in the course of trial, at least. Thus, there should be no cause for worry, and this Court would refuse to come to the rescue of the petitioner in the matter in an unwarranted manner. Both the writ petitions are dismissed.