' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---This civil appeal, by leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment dated 25-5-1994 of a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court whereby Writ Petition No,105-R of 1994 filed by the appellants with regard to allotment of certain evacuee agricultural land in favour of the respondents was dismissed.
2. The writ petition had arisen in the background of facts that on 30-6-1979 respondents Nos.1 to 3 had tiled an application before the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Sheikhupura for restoration of the land in dispute which was surrendered by them under Martial Law Regulation No,89. The application was ultimately dismissed on 7-7-1986 by the Board of Revenue. The order of the Board of Revenue was challenged by the said respondents through Writ Petition No,247-R of 1986 which was disposed of on 15-3-1992 with a direction to the Settlement Authorities to "proceed further according to law for adjustment of pending units, if any, of the petitioners against the evacuee land strictly according to law". The Notified Officer, vide order dated 2-3-1993, allotted the land in dispute in favour of respondents Nos.1 to 3 who in turn sold the same to respondents Nos.4 to 9.
' The appellants challenged the allotment and sale in favour of the respondents by filing a writ petition but it was dismissed through the impugned judgment.
3. Leave was granted to consider, inter alia, whether land once surrendered under Martial Law Regulation No,89 which thereafter vested in the Government of West Pakistan could have been legally transferred to respondents. Nos.1 to 3 on the basis of Q.P.R. Supplementary MR-V dated 23- 4-1978 after repeal of Evacuee laws.
4. The impugned judgment was assailed by the learned counsel for the appellants from different angles. The main thrust of his arguments was that respondents Nos.1 to 3 were refugees from village Bharatpur India "Non Agreed Area" and Q.P.R. Worth 4538 Produce Index Units was issued in their favour. They were allotted land measuring 646 Kanals equivalent to 2667 Produce Index Units in village Rusay, Tehsil Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura. However, pursuant to issuance of Martial Law Regulation 89 all certificates issued in connection with Q.P.R.-V were cancelled and fresh allotments were made on the basis of new entitlement certificates. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed declaration forms and M.R.-V was issued in their favour on 17-8-1967 to the extent of 2190 Produce Index Units with the result that they retained land worth 2190 Produce Index Units and surrendered the remaining land including the land in dispute which became vested in the Government of Pakistan free of any encumbrance and did not revert to the Compensation Pool as envisaged by Para 9 of Martial Law Regulation No,
89. The Registration of Claims Act, 1956 and Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 were repealed on 28-1-1975 with effect from 1-7-1974 and at that time no claim of respondents Nos.1 to 3 was pending in any Court but in spite of that they were fraudulently issued, on the basis of Q.P.R., Supplementary MR-V on 23-4-1978. Having obtained Supplementary MR-V illegally they had moved an application on 30-6-1979 before the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Sheikhupura for restoration of the surrendered land but without any success. Thereafter, they filed a writ petition which was disposed of on 15-3-1992 with- certain observations and under the cover thereof they got the suit land allotted in their favour on 2-3-1993 through the Notified Officer and transferred the same post-haste in favour of respondents Nos.4 to
9. The suit land got allotted by respondents Nos.1 to 3 through trickery and fraud includes a graveyard and constructed area (Abadi Deh) which is in possession of the appellants. The allotment made in favour of the respondents being fraudulent was liable to be set aside.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.4 to 9 defended the impugned judgment and the allotment of the land in dispute made in favour of respondents Nos.1 to 3 on the grounds that entitlement of respondents Nos.1 to 3 was reduced unilaterally on which they had filed a representation which was pending at the time of repeal of the Evacuee laws. The representation was allowed and a revised entitlement certificate in Form MR-V was issued on 23-4-1978 for 4399 Produce Index Units instead of 2190 Produce Index Units. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 had not played any fraud and restoration of the area surrendered by them was fully justified. Reliance was placed on an unreported judgment of this Court dated 16-12-1976 in C.P.L.A. No,816 of 1974 titled Mushtaq Ahmed v. Sharif and others. The surrendered area was restored by the Notified Officer concerned on 2-3-1993 in compliance with the order passed in Writ Petition No,247-R of 1986 decided on 15-3- 1992. It was further contended that the petitioners had secured possession of a part of the land illegally in the year 1988 and constructed a few Kucha huts thereon and in any case they had no locus standi to challenge allotment of the land in dispute in favour of respondents Nos.1 to 3 and its sale in favour of respondents Nos.4 to 9 who were bona fide purchasers.
6. Before examining the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties it is necessary to reproduce para.9 of Martial Law Regulation No,89. It is worded thus:- "Surrendered land not to revert to compensation pool.--The land surrendered under paragraph 8 shall not revert to the compensation pool constituted under section 5 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 (XLVII of 1958) but shall vest and shall be deemed always to have vested free of encumbrances in the Government of West Pakistan and may be disposed of in such manner as the Government may think fit."
7. We have considered the rival contentions in the light of material available on the record including the documents placed thereon by the respondents. It is an admitted position that the land in dispute having been surrendered by respondents Nos.1 to 3 under Martial Law Regulation No,89 had become property of Government of West Pakistan and gone out of the compensation pool. The petitioners have alleged that respondents Nos.1 to had regained ownership of the land in dispute by means of fraud. The contesting respondents on the other hand have contended that after having surrendered the land in dispute respondents Nos.1 to 3 had filed a representation for its restoration which was pending at the time of repeal of the evacuee laws. It was subsequently allowed and a revised entitlement certificate in Form MR-V was issued on 23-4-1978 for 4399 Produce Index Units instead of 2190 Produce Index Units and the Notified Officer had allotted the land in dispute in favour of respondents Nos.1 to 3 in compliance with the directions contained in Writ Petition No,247-R of 1986, decided on 15-3-1992.
8. There is nothing on the record to lend support to the case set up by respondents Nos.4 to 9 that respondents Nos.1 to 3 had made a representation for restoration of the surrendered land which was pending at the time of repeal of the evacuee laws and was allowed by the competent authority. We have thus no choice but to hold that respondents Nos.1 to 3 had obtained supplementary MR-V on 23-4-1978 through the back door and the so-called restoration of the suit land in their favour is void ab initio and a nullity in the eye of law being the outcome of machination and a fraudulent and collusive process adopted to defeat the stringent provisions of para. 9 of Martial Law Regulation No,89. The fraud is too flagrant to be overlooked and its condonation on any technical ground like locus standi of the petitioners etc. Would certainly amount to putting premium on foul play. The respondents cannot make any mileage from the aforementioned writ petition as the matter was not examined therein from the present angle and the Settlement Authorities were only directed to proceed further according to law, for adjustment of pending units, if any, of the petitioners. The unreported judgment of this Court cited by the learned counsel for private respondents is distinguishable because in that case a formal representation was made by the petitioner as a result of which his MR-V was re-verified and he was relegated to his original position. Respondents Nos.4 to 9 may be bona fide purchasers for consideration but they cannot acquire better title in the disputed land than that of respondents Nos.1 to 3. Their remedy lies in proceeding against respondents Nos.1 to 3 for refund of the sale price.
' For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed with costs, allotment of the land in dispute in favour of respondents Nos.1 to 3 and its sale in favour of respondents Nos.4 to 9 are set aside. The land in dispute shall vest and shall be deemed always to have vested free of encumbrances in the Provincial Government.