RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.-- Through this application it is prayed that the operation of judgment dated 9.3.2001 of the learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, be suspended and a status quo order be maintained till the final disposal of the main petition for leave to appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner for quite some time and have gone through the file of the case. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the petitioner secured allotment of the land on 10.12.1956 under Grow More Food Scheme. The same was subsequently cancelled and the petitioner in the year 1973 succeeded in obtaining alternate land in lieu of his cancelled land under the above Scheme.
3. One, Sher Alam, who has not been made party in these proceedings, moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Faisalabad (then Lyallpur), that the date of birth of the petitioner was 15.9.1958, as such, allotment made in his favour in the year 1956 was bogus and fraudulent. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector vide his order dated 5.2.1974 cancelled the land.
The petitioner went in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha Division, where he took up the stance that he was born in 1955 and to support this contention, as borne out from the order of the Additional Commissioner, he presented a certificate in respect of one Jehangir.
Petitioner's claim was that his original name., was Jehangir which was subsequently changed to Ahmad Yar. The learned Additional Commissioner, Sargodha, dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 25.5.1974. The petitioner filed a revision petition and a learned Member, Board of Revenue Punjab (Mr. S.M. Nasim) vide his order dated 30.7.1974 set aside the orders of the forums below. The informant preferred a review petition but the same was also dismissed by a learned Member, Board of Revenue, on 19.11.1974. This order was set at naught by the Lahore High Court vide its judgment dated 13.11.1984 passed in Writ Petition No. 2218 of 1974 on the ground that Mr. S.M. Nasim was not a Notified Member Colonies, as such he was not competent to pass order dated 30.7.1974.
The matter, was remanded and in remand, the learned Member, Board of 'Revenue, dismissed the revision petition vide his order dated 8.8.1985. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3527 of 1985 and through the judgment dated 9.3.2001 of the Lahore High Court the stance of the petitioner was rejected.
4. The argument of the learned counsel that in a similar situation Member, Board of Revenue, allowed the allottee to purchase the land at market price plus 10% surcharge payable in 10 instalments in spite of the fact that his allotment was earlier cancelled and all the forums upheld the same as he obtained the said allotment through misrepresentation and fraud, is devoid of any force.
5. We feel sorry in observing that on the one hand cancellation of allotment on the basis of securing the same through fraud and misrepresentation was upheld and how on the other hand the alleged allottee could have been allowed to purchase the same simply because of his long affiliation with the land which he admittedly secured through fraud.
6. We strongly disapprove Which kind of approach as it amounts to putting premium on a 'fraudulent transaction. This, if allowed to continue, would encourage other mischievous persons to indulge in such like fraudulent activities hoping that at the end of the day, all these would be condoned.
7. Even if the case of the petitioner is admitted he was hardly 2-3 years of age at the time of allotment, which was certainly against the policy of the above Scheme. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, we do not find any force in this application to grant interim relief at this stage which is, accordingly, dismissed.