' The material circumstances of the present case are not disputed. Respondent No,2 Dur Muhammad admittedly was initially allotted land measuring 97 Kanals and 6 Marlas in Chak No,79/WB Tehsil and District Vehari under the Grow More Food Scheme. The Collector, Multan Cancelled the said allotment on 22-10-1962, inter alia, on the ground that the aforesaid land was within 5 miles radius of the Municipal Committee Vehari and was, therefore, not available for allotment under the aforesaid scheme. As a result, it was ordered that alternate land be given to Dur Muhammad as per terms of the Punjab Government instructions issued on 1-6-1970.
' Pursuant to the said instructions and after scrutiny of the entitlement of Dur Muhammad, he was found entitled to the allotment of alternate land under the Grow More Food Scheme. As a result, by means of order, dated 14-4-1971 he was allotted land measuring 104 Kanals, 16 Marlas in Chak No,52/WB.
2. Thereafter, it appears that Mehr Din, the father of Akram respondent No,4 challenged the aforesaid order of 14-4-1971 before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan in appeal. The said appeal was dismissed on 9-12-1975, whereafter the aforesaid Mehr Din preferred a revision petition the Member Board of Revenue, which too was dismissed on 2-9-1976.
3. Thereafter, Usman, a brother of Mahr Din initiated proceedings by challenging the allotment made in favour of Dur Muhammad respondent No,2. The said Usman filed an application before the Collector on the ground that Dur Muhammad owned more than 2000 Kanals of land and, therefore, was not entitled to the allotment of the above referred land measuring 104 Kanals, 16 Marlas in Chak No,52/WB Tehsil and District Vehari. The said application was dismissed on 25-4- 1978, whereafter Usman filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan which was also dismissed on 30-4-1979.
4. It is evident, from the record that proprietary rights of land measuring 101 Kanals, 3 Marlas were conveyed to Dur Muhammad respondent No,2 on 19-4-1983. The said conveyance was duly reflected firstly in a conveyance deed and secondly in the Jamabandi for the years 1989-90 and 1993-94. The entries in the Revenue Record were made on the basis of mutation No,157 dated 21-3- 1984 which was duly sanctioned in favour of Dur Muhammad respondent No,2.
5. On 10-5-1994 the present petitioners namely Liaquat Ali etc. Purchased the aforesaid land from Dur Muhammad for total consideration of Rs,16,00,000 and a mutation of sale in their favour was duly sanctioned being Mutation No,733 dated 14-5-1994. It transpires that Akbar respondent No,3 then filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue to challenge the conveyance of land by Dur Muhammad to the present petitioners. In the said revision petition the present petitioners Liaquat Ali etc. Were not impleaded initially but on their own application they were made parties before the Board of Revenue as respondents.
6. The Board of Revenue, however, took suo motu action in the matter and passed an order dated 25-1-1995. In the said order, the Board of Revenue held that Dur Muhammad respondent No,2 had obtained an allotment of land in his favour fraudulently and by concealing material facts. The Board of Revenue also concluded that the petitioners Liaqat Ali etc. Were also deceived by Dur Muhammad respondent. It was, thus, implicit in the order of the Board of Revenue that the present petitioners were bona fide purchasers from Dur Muhammad respondent No,2 for valuable consideration and without any notice of any defect in title. It was on this basis, that the Board of Revenue, while cancelling the allotment and conveyance deed in favour of Dur Muhammad, allowed the present petitioners to purchase the land on payment of market price. The order of the Board of Revenue was 'based on its powers under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912.
7. The matter which is now being agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court is, as to whether the petitioners could have been deprived of vested rights created in their favour by Dur Muhammad respondent No,2, while he admittedly was owner of the disputed land, having acquired title by means of a conveyance deed executed in his favour and duly reflected in the relevant Revenue Record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that even if Dur Muhammad respondent No,2 had committed any fraud while obtaining the allotment of the disputed land, the conveyance in his favour was at best voidable (as distinct from being void ab initio) at the option of the Government. This contention is well-founded, being based on the distinction recognized in law between voidable transactions based on fraud and void transactions such as those based on mutual mistake of fact.
8. It is well-settled law that a conveyance which is voidable remains effective and does not, in any mariner, impair the rights of the vendee to deal with the land conveyed, until it is set aside on the ground of fraud. In the present case the admitted position is that Dur Muhammad respondent No,2 had conveyed his interest in the disputed land to Liaquat Ali etc. Petitioners, while he was the owner of the said land duly recorded in all relevant Revenue Records and also having a validly executed conveyance deed in his favour.
9. Furthermore, it is not denied that the petitioners were, in fact bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice of any fraud on the part of Dur Muhammad respondent No,2 when they obtained title to the disputed land. The material question before me is whether the right and title of the petitioners in the disputed land could have been defeated after the aforesaid transfer of title in their favour on the ground that their predecessor in-interest namely Dur Muhammad had committed a fraud with the object of obtaining proprietary rights in the said land.
10. It is clear that on 10-5-1994 when the petitioners acquired title in the disputed land, Dur Muhammad was in fact and in law, the owner of the said land. The said ownership was manifested firstly in the conveyance deed executed in his favour by the Government and secondly in the Revenue Record. It is, thus, clear that valid and alienable title vested in Dur Muhammad respondent No,2 at the time of its sale in favour of the petitioners. It, therefore, follows that being vested with title, Dur Muhammad was legally competent to convey it to the petitioners while he was possessed of such title. Any subsequent determination by the Board of Revenue that the said respondent No,2 had acquired the land by means of fraud could not possibly affect the title of the petitioners acquired at a time when such title was vested in Dur Muhammad.
11. The powers of the Board of Revenue under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, were only available to it for the period durisng which the transferee from the Government (Dur Muhammad) retained title to the said land. The said powers could not have been exercised after the transferee had further conveyed the land to bona fide C purchasers such as the present petitioners.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that it was not open to the Board of Revenue in exercise of powers under section 30(2) of the aforesaid Act to resume the land which already stood vested in the petitioners prior to the date of resumption, I would, therefore, allow this petition with costs.
11. This order shall, however, not prevent the Government or the Board of Revenue from initiating any proceedings against Dur Muhammad respondent No,2 in accordance with law, on account of the fraud committed by him.