This review petition is directed against the order dated 18-12-1995 passed by this Court in W.P.
No.170/1993 whereby the writ petition preferred against the order of Ch.Talib Hussain, Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 23-11-1992 was dismissed.
2. In ground (a) of the Review Petition very serious allegations to the following effect were urged:--- "That the impugned judgment dated 23-11-1992 was passed by. Ch.Talib Hussain, Chief Settlement Commissioner, respondent No.1, who was at the verge of his retirement and he made the series of judgments in those days when the passed order dated 23-11-1992 and those series of judgments were made the result of not only illegality but was also based upon mala fide and it was the voice of the day that the judgments given by the said Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, respondent No.1 were the sale decisions and special notice was taken of his judgments and a Special Committee was constituted to look into the judgments in the Board of Revenue, Lahore."
3. Notice was issued to the respondents on 30-1-1996 while admitting the review petition for consideration. In pursuance to the notice the contesting respondents appeared and submitted written reply to the review petition raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the same as, well as point of limitation. It was stated by them that the review petition was barred by 19 days and as such is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
4. On behalf of the respondents Nos. l and 6 Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and Additional Commissioner Revenue /Settlement Commissioner Lands, D.G. Khan respectively, Messrs Nasim Kashmiri, Addl. Advocate -General and Hamid A.I Mirza, learned counsel for the Settlement Department have appeared. Record of the case has also been produced by Liaquat A.I, Ahmad to Additional Commissioner (Rev.) D.G. Khan. During the appraisal of the said record most startling and shocking facts were noticed regarding manipulation, fraud and misappropriation of the evacuee property. This record was not produced during the hearing of the writ petition and as such it escaped the notice of this Court while hearing the writ petition. Had the said record been made available before the Court at the time of hearing of the case, writ petition would not have been dismissed vide order dated 18-12-1995.
4-A. Brief facts of the case are that an inquiry was held by Mian Ihsanul Haq, Settlement Commissioner, Lands regarding the allotment in favour of Atta Muhammad and Dost Muhammad against which an application under sections 10 and 11 of the Land Settlement Act was submitted by Mst. Khurshid Jehan Begum and Mst. Aysha Sultana respondents Nos.3 and 4 allegedly on 28-6- 1974 on the ground that they secured the allotment of land in excess of their entitlement in Village Pattala Manda, Tehsil Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh. It was prayed that the said land be cancelled from the names of the allottees and allotted to them against their pending unsatisfied claim.
Copies of Khata Nos.840 and 841 of R.L.II of Village Pattal Manda were produced according to which 5060 Kanals of land against 5693 P.I. Units were allotted to Atta Muhammad Khan and Dost Muhammad Khan each against their Claim Forms Nos.8247 and 8249 respectively. Said allotments were secured through Muhammad Azeem, Special Attorney. During the inquiry held by Mian Ihsanul Haq, notices were issued to Dost Muhammad and Atta Muhammad who failed to appear whereupon substituted service was effected through newspaper for 21-8-1976. On 13-9-1976 Dost Muhammad and Atta Muhammad appeared and filed written statement disowning the allotment existing in their names in Village Pattal Manda. They were also examined on oath and made deposition to the same effect. They further denied the appointment of Malik Muhammad Azim as their attorney or to have secured any allotment or made any sale of land in Village Pattal Manda.
5. Malik Muhammad Azim, Attorney of Dost Muhammad and Atta Muhammad appeared in person alongwith his counsel on 16-10-1976 before Mian Ehsanul Haq, Settlement Commissioner, Land and filed an application raising certain preliminary objections about the maintainability of the Mukhbari application. Counsel for the petitioner in the Mukhbari application filed written reply about these preliminary objections but Malik Muhammad Azim absented himself and never again appeared in the Court personally nor he represented himself through any counsel. During the proceedings it transpired that Malik Muhammad Azim alleged attorney has sold away some of the land at Khata Nos.840 and 841 of RL-II of Village Pattal Manda. The vendees were summoned through publication in the newspaper but none of them turned up to defend their interest and ex parte proceedings were ordered against them on 4-11-1976.
6. Besides the documentary evidence four witnesses were also examined by the learned Settlement Commissioner, namely Munshi Fateh A.I, Patwari C.R.O., Lahore P.W.-1, Munshi Ikhlaq Ahmed, Patwari C.R.O., Lahore P.W.-2, Ijaz Hussain P.A./Reader to Chief Settlement Commissioner P.W.3 and Mubarik A.I Khan previous Reader to Chief Settlement Commissioner P.W.4. According to P.W.1 Munshi Fateh A.I, on the basis of record, respondents Dost Muhammad and Atta Muhammad had abandoned land in Village Pakki Tibbi Balwana and Kerkhera. The detail of said land is given in the order of the learned Settlement Commissioner dated 24-5-1977. It was also stated by the witness P. W.1 that Claim Forms Nos. 8247 and 8249 mentioned in the Register Haqdaran are bogus.
7. P.W.2 Muhammad Ikhlaq Ahmad has stated that he had brought with him record of Hansanwala, Hadbast No.76, Tehsil Hanumangarh, Bakenir State in which Dost Muhammad son of Lai Khan is recorded as Marousee of 18 Bighas and 8 Biswas of land which has been verified on Claim Form No.20959 for Mauza Mandi Arifwala, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal. Atta Muhammad son of Lai Khan is not recorded as owner of any land in this estate.
8. P.W.3 and P.W.4 were examined only for ascertaining whether the said Mukhbari application was filed genuinely or otherwise. It was also asserted by one Muhammad Aslam that he is prior informer in respect of disputed land of Village Pattal Manda. The file of his Mukhbari case titled Mst. Ghosia Bibi through Muhammad Aslam Mukhtar v. Mirza Khan etc. Was examined. The said Mukhbari application was against Mirza and Khushi Muhammad. The names of Atta Muhammad and Dost Muhammad have been added subsequently as respondents through interpolation. An inquiry was held in depth by the learned Settlement Commissioner (L), who vide order dated 24-5-1977 found that both Dost Muhammad and Atta Muhammad have no claim whatsoever in District Muzaffargarh as against the land abandoned by them in India, they secured allotment in Sub- Tehsil Arifwala, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal and balance units were adjusted in Village Basti Jam, Kot Chhuto and Mauza Thatta District D.G. Khan. It was categorically stated by the respondents before the learned Settlement Commissioner that neither they appointed any person as attorney nor they secured any allotment in Kot Addu. In this view of the matter the land which was found to have been allotted to Dost Muhammad and Atta Muhammad was cancelled as the allotment of land in their names appears to be result of fraud and connivance with senior officers of the Settlement Department. Huge track of land measuring 10120 Kanals had been shown in the name of Atta Muhammad and Dost Muhammad right at fake end of close of the Settlement operation as the said allotment was shown to have been made on 8-5-1973 while the last date for the allotment was 30-6-1973. In fact the very allotment appears to be fraudulent and ante-dated.
The operative part of the order dated 24-5-1973 is reproduced below:-- "9. The allotments at Khata R.L.II Nos.840 and 841 of village Pattal Manda appears to have been made against Claim Forms Nos.8247 and 8249. These claim forms do not find any authenticity from the Central Record Office. Rather the statement of Patwari of C.R.C. Is to the effect that these claims are fictitious and their entry in the Central Record Office is suspicious.
10. Thus there remains little doubt that the allotments made at Khata R.L.II Nos.840 and 841 of village Pattal Manda are the result of fraud and misrerpresentation. The conclusion finds support from the fact that (i) the original claimants, namely Dost Muhammad and Ata Muhammad have disowned these allotments, (ii) the original claimants had already obtained allotments in full satisfaction of their claims in District Sahiwal and D.G.Khan, (iii) There is no valid power of attorney authorising anybody to secure the allotments in dispute and (iv) the Claim Forms Nos.8247 and 8249 are not genuine claims. All these circumstances taken cumulatively prove that the allotment of land made at Khata Nos.840 and 841 of village Pattal Manda are fraudulent, illegal and void and are liable to be cancelled. I accordingly order the cancellation of the said allotments made in favour of Dost Muhammad and Ata Muhammad and direct that the land should be resumed from their names as well as from the names of the vendees."
9. The above order dated 24-5-1977 was challenged by the vendees from Malik Muhammad Azeem alleged special attorney of allottees before this Court vide W.Ps. Nos. 1532-R, 1533-R, 1535-R, 1536-R and 1537-R of 1977, W.Ps. Nos.1025-R/1977 and 1060-R/1977. The last two writ petitions were disposed of by Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman on 29-10-1977 whereby order dated 24-5-1977 was set aside.
Similarly the other abovesaid writ petitions were also disposed of vide order dated 25-4-1978 by the same learned Bench on the ground mentioned in the previous order dated 25-4-1978 is reproduced below:
8. The result is that Writ Petition 1534-R/77 qua petitioners Nos.2 and 3 is dismissed and all the petitions are otherwise accepted in terms of my order dated 29-10-1977. These cases, too are remanded to the Settlement Commissioner for a decision afresh either by himself or by an Officer notified in terms of subsection (2) of section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 to deal with such cases with notice to the parties. I wish to make it clear that order of the Settlement Commissioner is quashed only to the extent it affects the right of petitioner before me."
The operative part of the remand order passed in W.P. No.12025-R/1977 and 1060-R/1977 on 29-10- 1977 is as under: " .. I am, therefore, of the view that the order of Settlement Commissioner dated 24-5-1977 in so far as it affects land involved in these petitions, cannot be sustained. I declare the same to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect to the extent it affects the petitioners' rights. The petitions are accordingly accepted and the cases are remanded to the Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision either by himself or by an Officer Notified in terms of subsection (2) of section 2 of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 with notice to the parties ....
Before parting with this case, I wish to make it clear that the parties will be at liberty to take up any plea as may be available to them and the Learned Officer dealing with the case will consider such pleas uninfluenced by any observation made in this judgment.
10. That in view of the remand orders passed by the High Court, the matter was taken up by Sh.
Abdul Jabbar, Settlement Commissioner (Lands) with powers of Chief Settlement -Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore who scrutinized the entire record and evidence and after hearing lengthy arguments of the parties decided the matter vide order dated 20-3-1982. In the said fairly lengthy order consisting of 33 pages and 75 paras. Wherein para. No.68 it was observed:--
68. But it appears to common sense that in this case a fraud was committed at least to the extent of 5693+5693=11386 P.I.U. And an area of 5060+5060=10120 Kanals was fraudulently obtained which was not an insignificant area by any standard. Such a fraud must have been perpetrated with the active connivance of, and with collusion of the various official (s) of Officer (s) at different levels.
But their individual liabilities and responsibilities could not be arbitrarily fixed in a summary inquiry of the present nature which has, though been protracted for so long a time in which only five witnesses were examined in eight years. But it is obvious that a fraud at a very grand scale has been committed actually. In fact the very fraudulent allotments appear to be ante-dated. The impugned allotments at Village Pattal Manda are shown to have been made on 8-5-1973; while the last date of allotment was 30-6-1973. One can easily smell rat. If the record are properly scrutinized, there is every likelihood of the discovery of the ante-dated nature of these allotments."
11. Vide para. No.69 of the said order, a copy of the order was sent to the Secretary (Settlement and Rehabilitation) Wing, Punjab, Lahore, as well as Deputy Commissioner, Muzaffargarh/Settlement Officer, Layyah with the direction that shifting inquiries should be held both at the Headquarter level as well as the Field levels to unearth the one of the biggest frauds in the allotment of evacuee lands.
12. A copy of the order dated 20-3-1982 was also sent by the Presiding Officer to Deputy Commissioner/District Registrar, Faisalabad with reference to the document registered on 30-8- 1972 as General Power of Attorney with the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Faisalabad on behalf of Atta Muhammad respondent No.-I before the learned Settlement Commissioner. He was shown to be a resident of Ghulam Muhammad Abad, Block S. Quarter No.314 Lyallpur (now Faisalabad).
13. A copy of the order was also sent to Additional Settlement Commissioner (Administration) with a direction that an inquiry should be held as to the circumstances in which a forged document was used for the preparation and issue of the certified copy dated 18-4-1981, vide para. 71 of the abovementioned order.
14. In para. No.72 it was observed that: "There have been Complaints from time to time by the various parties that their opponent had tampered with the record, with the connivance of staff of the various Settlement Commissioners from time to time. The petitioners made application in this regard on 10-4-1980, 30-3-1981, and 3- 6-1981 respectively. There are also various allegations that certain documents have been stolen, lost or misplaced, but no particular need was paid to all these allegations, complaints or counter- complaints. Eventually the very foundation of the case i.e. The original Mukhbari application was allowed to be get lost from the record. I hereby order that the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Administration), should take due notice of all such complaints, counter-complaints or allegations and counter-allegations. The complicity of the staff dealing with the case, from time to time, should be duly determined; and the culprits, if any, should be duly and promptly brought to book in the due process of law. The responsibility of the theft, loss/misplacement of the Mukhbari petition in the instant case has not yet been fixed, though the matter appears to have been duly reported to the Administration Wing, as back as 22-9-1981. It is not enough that a case has been got registered with the Police. The administration is not absolved of the independent duty of fixing the suitable responsibility through a Departmental Enquiry."
15. This order of Sheikh Abdul Jabbar, Settlement Commissioner (Lands) dated 20-3-1982 was challenged by Muhammad Sharif son of Nizam Din by filing W.P. No.356/R-1982 which was subsequently withdrawn vide order dated 21-9-1982.
16. On the basis of the order of the learned Settlement Commissioner (Lands) dated 20-3-1982 Secretary (Settlement and Rehabilitation) also held an inquiry into the matter and came to the conclusion vide Annexure-B to the writ petition, that three cases needed a thorough scrutiny for which examination of the relevant revenue record was essential. Anti-Corruption Establishment, Multan is seized of the matter and the final result of the investigation will be helpful in deciding the case. The Secretary further observed that efforts have been made to collect sufficient evidence so that a clear picture is presented before the Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner.
17. A report was asked for by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, (Ch.Talib Hussain) from the Secretary, Settlement and Rehabilitation in the case. By referring the contents of Mukhbari Application of Mst. Hadayat Bibi d/o Mst. Ghusia Bibi and other by Mst. Khurshid Jehan Begum and Mst. Aisha d/o Ghulam Mohyud Din Khan the cases were examined and in the light of the report and inquiry held so far it was stated by the Secretary that with regard to the first Mukhbari application relating to Mst. Ghausia Bibi tampering in the entitlement certificate was committed by the claimants themselves by adding 100 Kanals in each of the six entitlement certificates which resulted in excess allotment of 4143 Kanals. He further observed that a careful scrutiny of the case however, reveals that the Assistant Commissioner, Kot Addu, vide his report dated 27-5-1989 has opined that the tampering was done after the adjustment proceedings. Fard Taqseem was issued in 1960 and the same area was given in adjustment in 1977. Dost Muhammad in a Lambardari case while submitting the details of his holding in 1976 mentioned his holding as 22 Kanals. Misal Hiqiyat prepared in 1978-79 on the basis of R.L.-II and adjustment carried out in 1977 shows the same original allotment in the names of the claimants. The orders of confirmation on R.L.-II Khatas do not contain details of Khasra number thus providing an opportunity to make interpolation in the column of Khasra numbers. A Mukhbari application against Dost Muhammad submitted by Mst.
Ghausia Bibi through her attorney on 15-2-1974 was dismissed in default by the A.D.C.(C)/D.S.C.
(Land) on 2-7-1974. Any new application should, therefore, be naturally time-barred one, the last date being 30-6-1974. He further submitted that some clever relative/friend of the claimants has got power of attorney from them and is now participating in a foul play in association with the alleged Mukhbir, therefore, the claimants are not to be blamed for that. It was further held that there was nothing to prove the genuineness of Mukhbari. All the interpolation seem to have been manipulated by the Mukhbari herself and as such she is not entitled to any benefit.
18. Regarding the second case of Mukhbari made by Mst. Naeema Khatoon, it was observed that in this claim four claimants were originally entitled to 72 Kanals each but later on they were shown entitled to 1672 Kanals each through manipulation. It is clear cut case of forgery in which figure 1600 have been added and as a result thereof instead of 72 Kanals 1672 Kanals have been inserted.
Parchi Taqseem, Fard Taqseem and the subsequent adjustment and the implementation in the Revenue Record show only the original entitlement of 72 Kanals against each of the claimants. The confirmation orders on the -R.L.-II Khatas do not give any Khasra numbers thus providing an opportunity for interpolation. Misal Haqiyat for the year 1978-79 prepared on the basis of RL-II shows only 72 Kanals each in the name of ailments. The same area now stands recorded in the Revenue Record of 1985-86. The then Assistant Commissioner, Kot Addu Mr. Asif Bajwa, says that his signatures seem to be forged. The then M.B.R. (R)/CSC's initials on the Mukhbari application have been declared as bogus by the expert. This suggests that the application was ante-dated Mst.
Nacema Khatoon hails from Lalu Chak, H.B. No.22, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, the record of which has been sealed, the whole village being bogus. It was further stated by Secretary (Settlement and Rehabilitation) that since the claimants have all along been shown as the owners of 72 Kanals each in the Revenue Record, there is no reason to believe that they were a party to the tampering done in R.L.II Khatas. There was no tampering till adjustment of proceedings which took place in 1977. It clearly proves that the record was tampered in 1977 and the Mukhbari application was instituted even later which is thus time-barred.
19. As far as the third case of Mukhbari regarding allotment of Dost Muhammad and Atta Muhammad sons of Lal Khan filed by Mst. Khurshid Begum and Mst. Ayesha Sultana is concerned, it was submitted by the Secretary, Settlement and Rehabilitation that the said application was ante- dated and as such the informer has no right whatsoever and that the entire land should be resumed. Following material facts were noted by the Secretary while submitting the report to Ch. Talib Hussain, Chief Settlement Commissioner:---
(i) The then MBR(R)/CSC, Mr. Aslam Awais, has denied his signatures on the Mukhbari application.
In the other case in which the Mukhbari application was instituted by Mst. Naeema Khatoon, the expert has given the opinion that the initials are forged.
(ii) It appears that Mukhbari application was instituted in 1976 and then the digit ' 6' was tampered into the digit ' 4' .
(iii) The counsel appearing on behalf of the informer submitted an affidavit before the High Court, Multan Bench, Multan to the effect that he has been conducting the case since 1976.
(iv) Mst. Khurshid Begum and Mst. Ayesha Khatoon have given an affidavit to the Anti-Corruption Establishment to the effect that they have not given any power of attorney to Haji Murad A.I regarding allotment of agricultural land in Pakistan.
The Mukhbari application, according to the Secretary, Settlement and Rehabilitation was clearly ante-dated and based on fraud in which the possibility of the learned counsel's involvement could not be ruled out. The case being based on fraud and forgery can be called for by the Member, Board of Revenue at any time to decide it by fixing it in his Peshi. It was also pointed out that the Investigating Officer, namely, Ch. Masood Ahmad, D.S.P. Anti-Corruption Establishment, Multan can also be called to submit the result of his investigation. It was also submitted that a detailed inquiry is likely to disclose the involvement of some senior officers of the Settlement Department. While concluding it was submitted that in the first two cases the Mukhbari applications were ante-dated and in the third case the Mukhbari application was instituted in 1976 as mentioned above, therefore, none of the Mukhbaris was entitled to any benefit.
20. The matter does not end here, Mr. Hafeezullah Ishaq, Member (Revenue)/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab wrote a letter to the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue) /Settlement Commissioner (Land), Dera Ghazi Khan Division for further probe into the matter vide No.439/91- 2136 dated 3-4-1991 sending alongwith the letter a copy of the representation of Khawaj Din (review petitioner) as well as a copy of the order dated 20-3-1982 of Sh. Abdul Jabbar, Settlement Commissioner (Lands). The matter was still under scrutiny of the Additional Commissioner (Rev.), Dera Ghazi Khan, who has sent the record of the case through Liaquat A.I Ahmad to apprise the Court of the biggest fraud committed by the Mukhbaris/allottees/officials and officers of the Settlement Department. This record highlights the main features of the fraud committed for misappropriation of the land from village Pattal Manda, Tehsil Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh. The order of the High Court remanding the case by Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman was under process when other applications on executive sides submitted by Khawaj Din to various authorities came under consideration of Ch.Talib Hussain, Chief Settlement Commissioner, who hurriedly by fixing short dates decided the case on 23-11-1992, when the case in pursuance to the abovementioned remand order by this Court was under adjudication by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Notified Officer, D.G. Khan and the next date of hearing fixed therein was 26-11-1992. Vide the order dated 23-11-1992, he (CSC) has also quashed the letter dated 3-4-1991 whereby the case was entrusted to the Additional Commissioner (Rev.)/Notified Officer, D.G. Khan by the then Chief Settlement Commissioner for further scrutiny in the light of the remand order passed by this Court in W.P. No.1532-R/1977 and others, referred to above. The order dated 23-11-1992 passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner in the light of the above facts clearly appears to be illegal and without jurisdiction. He was not competent to undo the remand order of the High Court on the basis of which proceedings were under adjudication.
21. The Secretary (Settlement and Rehabilitation) in the report submitted to the Chief Settlement Commissioner has pointed out that all the three applications were ante-dated and beyond the prescribed period for that purpose, therefore, informers were not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
The said report has illegally been termed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as mala fide and irrelevant. The report of the Secretary dated 26-9-1992 was in accordance with the record and the inquiry held in relation to the fraud committed by different persons regarding the land in dispute.
The report has wrongly been ignored by the Chief Settlement Commissioner while passing the impugned order dated 23-11-1992 although the said report has highlighted the forgery and fraud by the informers. The Chief Settlement Commissioner (Ch. Talib Hussain) has also no authority to review the order of his predecessor-in-office Mr. Hafeezullah Ishaq, whereby he entrusted the case to the Additional Commissioner (Rev.)/Settlement Commissioner (Land), D.G. Khan vide Letter No.439-91/2136 dated 3-4-1991.
21-A. Mukhbari application of Mst. Ghausia Bibi was dealt with in detail by the Secretary (Settlement and Rehabilitation) in detail in the report wherein it was observed that there is nothing to prove the genuineness of Mukhbari. There are interpolations having been manipulated by the Mukhbar herself and as such she is not entitled to any benefit. The observation made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner that Khawaj Din has no locus standi is of no consequence as big fraud has been committed by the Mukhbaris/allottees in collusion with some senior officers of the Settlement Department. As stated above the proceedings pending in the Court of Additional Commissioner (Rev.)/Notified Officer, D.G. Khan could not be annulled. Once fraud is proved or brought to the notice of the Court, every effort should be made that fruit of the fraud should not be reaped by the person who committed the fraud and he should not be allowed to perpetuate injustice. Even if an order advancing the cause of justice is passed without jurisdiction, that cannot be called in question and it is the duty of the Court to see that fraud and forgery committed are not allowed to stand in the way of justice. Reliance in this behalf may be placed upon Muhammad Baran and others v. Members, Settlement and Rehabilitation, Board of Revenue, Punjab and others PLD 1991 SC 691 and the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others PLD 1975 Supreme Court 331.
22. The Court cannot shut its eyes when the record and the evidence placed before it establishes it clearly that public property is being plundered by criminals in collusion with various agents. It is the duty of the Court to see such a state of affairs with naked eyes and adopt all possible measures to deal with it fairly, justly in accordance with equity and conscience.
23. By the impugned order dated 23-11-1992 the Chief Settlement Commissioner not only quashed the proceedings pending in the Court of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), D.G. Khan referred to above but also observed that the criminal proceedings pending before the Anti-Corruption Establishment were also illegal. He has no authority to declare criminal proceedings pending before the Anti-Corruption Establishment to be illegal or without jurisdiction. It appears from the order dated 23-11-1992 that he proceeded with the case as if informers were applicant before him for redress of their grievance and while dismissing the application of the review petition he has granted relief to the persons against whom the complaints were made.
23-A. There was no application or prayer for quashment of the proceedings pending before the Anti-Corruption Department as he was the complainant in the said proceedings. At the initiative of the applicant review petitioner, the persons against whom the proceedings were initiated, have been given the benefit by the Chief Settlement Commissioner by circumventing the relief. Similarly irrelevant observations have been given with, regard to some of the writ petitions which were not strictly relevant with regard to the allotment made in Village Pattal Manda, Tehsil Kot Addu. He has not held any detailed inquiry himself and proceeded on the basis of report submitted by the Secretary (Settlement and Rehabilitation) Department in which serious objections regarding fraud, manipulation and forgery 'were highlighted and respondents Mukhbaris were declared disentitled to any relief from Chief Settlement Commissioner but ignoring the said report respondent No.1 illegally quashed all the proceedings pending against contesting respondents found clearly guilty of fraud, forgery and manipulation etc. By the Settlement Commissioner and Security S. And R.
Wing. The Chief Settlement Commissioner has given free licence to those people who have committed fraud and forgery and deprived the Government of huge track of land against whom serious allegations have been levelled and the same has been termed to be the biggest fraud in the Settlement operation. Respondent No.1 has thus short---circuited the matter and has absolved all the people involved in the fraud, forgery and interpolation.
24. The order of respondent No.1 Ch.Talib Hussain, Chief Settlement Commissioner was subsequently produced before the Additional Commissioner (Rev.), D.G.Khan by Dr. Tariq Jameel on 26-11-1992 three days after the order was passed. On the basis of said order, it was prayed that proceedings have been quashed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the file be consigned to record and ultimately for non-appearance of the patties the proceedings were consigned to record 24-6-1993 as the letter through which the entire matter was entrusted to Additional Commissioner (Rev.)/Notified Officer was set aside by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 23-11-1992.
24-A. The above facts disclosed by the file of the Additional Commissioner (Rev.)/Notified Officer, D.G. Khan escaped my notice while dismissing the Writ Petition No.170-R/1993 on 18-12-1995 as the file of the case was not produced before me. The discovery of these facts by the said file fully justifies the recall of the order passed by me in the writ petition.
25. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the review application is barred by 19 days is of no significance as it is established law that fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings and no limitation runs against fraud. Learned Additional Advocate-General and the learned counsel for the Settlement Department have supported the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that fraud at grand scale has been committed by the Mukhbaris in collusion with the officials and officers of the Settlement Department. Since I am of clear view that a large scale fraud has been committed by the informers for grabbing huge track of land in village Pattal Manda, Tehsil Kot Addu, therefore, question of bar of limitation will not arise. Bar of limitation cannot be allowed to be pleaded against fraud. The objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is, therefore, repelled.
26. The ground (a) taken in the review application and perusal of the file of Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Notified Officer, Dera Ghazi Khan, report of the Secretary Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing and the impugned order coupled with the abovementioned facts fully justify the review of my earlier order passed in the writ petition dated 18-12-1995, inasmuch as thorough inquiry is absolutely necessary in the matter.
27. For the above reasons, I accept the review application, recall my earlier order dated 18-12-1996 and declare the impugned order dated 23-11-1992 as illegal and of no legal consequence.
Consequently the case is remanded to the respondent No. 1 Chief Settlement Commissioner to decide the matter himself or entrust the same to the concerned Notified Officer for its decision afresh on its merits after hearing the necessary parties with due promptitude. The proceedings pending with the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Notified Officer, D.G.Khan entrusted to him vide letter dated 3-4-1991 by the then Chief Settlement Commissioner also stand restored. The review petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed with no order as to costs.