' The petitioner who claims to be a vendee from successors-in-interest of Ilam Din is aggrieved of order, dated 22-10-1999, whereby, respondent No,1 has declined to recall an order, dated 23-4-1997 assuming jurisdiction in the matter in view of allegations of fraud and fabrication allegedly committed in the case.
2. Shorn of unnecessary reference to previous litigation, the brief resume relevant in the context of the present controversy is that on a Mukhbari application by Ilam Din and some others land allotted to Shukar Din in village Chatar, Tehsil Shakaragrah District Narowal was ordered to be cancelled by the Settlement Commissioner on 24-1-1977. While the matter of implementation of the said order of the Settlement Commissioner for allotment in favour of the successors of Ilam Din was pending before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/ Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala, an application was filed before the Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab by Shukar Din for staying the implementation proceedings that the order of the Settlement Commissioner was fake and fabricated. It was alleged that Muhammad Rafique (petitioner herein) had fabricated the order of the Settlement Commissioner. The said application was rejected by the Member, Board of Revenue on 28-10-1996 by taking the view that implementation of order, dated 24-1-1977 cannot be stopped in view of the directions of the High Court contained in its order, dated 27-4-1994. Jt was, however, observed as follows:-- "The concerned Notified Officer may proceed with the implementation of the order of the Supreme Court, dated 24-1-1977 in the light of the High Court's order, 'dated 27-4-1994. It should, however, be ensured that the cancelled land is allotted only to the legal heirs/genuine successors-in-interest of Ilam Din, original informer after satisfaction about the availability of their outstanding verified claim. The credentials of Muhammad Rafique son of Maroo should be carefully probed to ascertain his legitimate interest in this case, if any."
' There was again an application before the Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner which was rejected on 31-31997 with the observation that "in case the applicants have any substantial evidence to support their allegation, they will be at liberty to approach this Court again". Respondent No,2 then came up with an application before the Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner when the learned Member, Board of Revenue in view of the allegations and material brought before him considered it a case for further examination and inquiry and ordered for issuance of notice to Muhammad Rafique (petitioner herein). This order was challenged by the petitioner through Writ Petition No,18-R of 1998 which was disposed of with an observation that the petitioner, if so advised, may move a fresh application before respondent No,1 raising the objection as to his jurisdiction to proceed with the matter". The petitioner in pursuance thereof, made an application before respondent No,1, who has taken the view that "there is sufficient material to assume jurisdiction in this case to probe into the allegation of fraud".
It was further observed that "the allegation of fraud and the defence of the respondents can be considered at the relevant time". It is this order which has been challenged through this petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even for making a probe into the allegation of fraud and forgery, the authority must possess jurisdiction to proceed in the matter.
Denying the allegation of fraud, it is contended that order, dated 22-10-1999 is without lawful authority and the assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No,1 is unwarranted by law.
' Reference has been made to Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, Karachi and another v. Mannu Khan and 3 others (1973 SCM R 62), Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution v. Dr. Mumtaz Ali Taj and another (PLD 1975 SC 450), Muhammad Yousuf v. The Collector of Sea Customs, Karachi and others (PLD 1969 SC 153), Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office and others v. Bashir Ahmad and 9 others (1977 SCM R 208), Controller of Patents and Designs, Karachi and others v. Muhammad Qaudir Hussain (1995 SCM R 529), Malik Muhammad Sarfraz Khan Tiwana, Advocate v. Settlement Commissioner (Industries), Lahore and others (PLD 1989 SC 580), Rehmat Ali v. Additional District Judge, Multan and others (1999 SCM R 900, Syed Istijab Hassan and 4 others v. Member (Settlement and Reh. Wing) Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (1999 YLR 1627), Akhtar Hussain Siddiqui, Advocate v.
Province of Punjab and 3 others (1999 CLC 951) and Mst. Balquees Begum and another v. Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Muzaffargarh and another (1999 CLC 93) to contend that proceedings before respondent No,1 should be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the Department and the contesting respondent contends that at no stage the matter was decided by the authorities after full-fledge inquiry into the allegation of fraud and forgery; referring to order. Dated 28-10-1996 of the learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, whereby application of Shukar Din was rejected, it is contended that in the same very order the learned Member had directed that the credential of Muhammad Refique, petitioner herein, ,hould be carefully probed to ascertain his legitimate interest in this case, if any. It is thus, contended that so far as the petitioner is concerned, no finding in his favour was ever recorded by any of the authorities and it was open to scrutiny whether there was fraud committed in the matter. It is contended that the petitioner will have full opportunity to plead his case before respondent No,1, writ petition in the circumstances is misconceived. It is the common stance of both the learned counsel for the Department as also of respondent No,2 that the allegation of fraud can be enquired into by respondent No,1 in the facts and circumstances of the case. Reliance is placed on The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others (PLD 1975 SC 331), Muhammad Baran and others v. Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others (PLD 1991 SC 691), Lal Din and another v.
Muhammad Ibrahim (1993 SCM R 710).
5. In his order, dated 28-10-1996, the learned Member, Board of Revenue while rejecting the application of Shukar Din had directed to ensure that "the cancelled land is allotted only to the legal heirs/genuine successor-in-interest of Ilam Din, original informer after satisfaction about the availability of their outstanding verified claim. The credentials of Muhammad Rafique son of Maroo should be carefully probed to ascertain his legitimate interest in this case, if any. "It was thus, not out right rejection of the application on merits rather the matter was left upon to be probed as to the credential of Muhammad Rafique. Later, on 31-3-1997, as well, the learned Member, Board ,of Revenue observed that "in case the applicants have any substantial evidence to support their allegation, they will be at liberty to approach this Court again." It, was in this context that on an application, filed by respondent No,2 order, dated 23-4-1997 was passed entertaining the application that it was a case for further examination and inquiry in view of the allegations of fraud and fabrication. As mentioned above, Writ Petition No, 18-R of 1998 was tiled by the petitioner before this Court which was disposed of with an observation that the petitioner may make an application before respondent No,1 raising the objection to his jurisdiction, whereafter, respondent No,1 has passed order, dated 11-10-1999 that there was material to probe into the allegation of fraud. It was in this context that jurisdiction in the matter was assumed by respondent No, 1 . In the writ petition the case set up by the petitioner, is that he is purchaser from the successors-ininterest of Ilam Din who had been allotted the land after 28-10-1996. No allotment order has been placed on record nor any of the successors-in-interest of Ilam Din have been impleaded as party to the petition. In this background and context when the allegations of fraud and fabrication have been' the basis for proceeding, order, dated 23-4-1997 was amply justified to further examine and enquire into the matter. In the case of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil (supra), it was held that even a Court or Tribunal of a special or a limited jurisdiction can exercise suo motu power to recall or review an order obtained by fraud as the fraud vitiate most solemn proceedings.
The view taken in the abovementioned case was reiterated and applied in Lal Din's case (supra). In Muhammad Baran's case (supra) the allotments were cancelled by the Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner on the ground that the same had been obtained fraudulently. The purchasers from the allottees filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the cancellation of the allotment that such an order could not be passed after the repeal of the law and without hearing them. The matter was remanded by the Division Bench of this Court to the Board of Revenue which judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the plea that after the repeal of the law even the cases of fraud and forgery which were not pending at the time of repeal could not be reopened neither the High Court could remand the case for probe into the allegations of fraud and forgery. The order of the Division Bench of this Court was maintained and it was observed that the High Court could even refuse to interfere in the writ jurisdiction in view of the allegations of fraud and forgery.
6. There is another aspect of the matter and that is, that the petitioner has merely been called upon, so that, the allegation of fraud and fabrication is examined and probed into. In Virasat Ullah v. Bashir Ahmed, Settlement Commissioner (Industries) and another (1969 SCM R 154) a notice, issued by the Settlement Commissioner was challenged by filing a writ petition that he should not proceed with the case. The petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court that since . The matter has yet to be finally decided by the Settlement Commissioner, the issuance of notice could not furnish a basis for a writ petition. The order passed by the learned Single Judge was maintained in Letters Patent Appeal by the Division Bench. The matter was taken by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the petition was dismissed observing that "we are unable to see any point in this leave petition except the uneasiness on the part of the petitioner to undo the notice issued to him by the Settlement Commissioner which merely required that the petitioner should disclose his credential as the transferee of the property in dispute. The learned Judge has directed that the entitlement of the petitioner should be duly examined and we see no apparent reason why the petitioner wants to avoid this examination. The grievance of the petitioner at this stage is baseless and premature" In Shamrooz Khan v. Mohabbat Khan and others (1989 SCM R 819) in view of the allegation of forgeries the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had issued a notice which was challenged before the High Court and the writ petition was accepted declaring the notice as without lawful authority. Relying upon The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazal Khan (supra), it was held that "On no principle known to the Constitutional jurisdiction the power of the Tribunal to adjudicate a matter within its jurisdiction could be pre-empted by the High Court in the words in which it has been done. The custodian of the record is the best judge in the first place to determine the veracity, the correctness and the genuineness of its own record. It should have been given opportunity to discharge its duty in that respect. It is only then that a review of the adjudication could have taken place in the High Court."
Accordingly, the writ issued by the High Court was recalled with the direction to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to proceed with the determination of the allegations. In the present case, as well, the petitioner can avail an opportunity of representation before respondent No,1 and establish that allegation incorrect ncorrect and baseless. In paragraph 5 of the impugned order, the learned Member, Board of Revenue has noted certain aspects which, according to him, required to be considered and probed in the context of allegations of fraud, forgery and fabrication. It has, however, been observed by him that "the allegations of fraud and the defence of the respondent can be considered at the relevant time". Whether any fraud or forgery has been committed, is essentially a question of fact and determination can take place before the authority concerned by affording due opportunity of defence. There is no doubt whatsoever that the petitioner will have full opportunity to plead and defend himself.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No,1 has no jurisdiction in the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the context of the proceedings loses its significance. Even the petitioner does not claim that he had acquired any right in the land prior to the repeal of the law. He claims to be vendee from the successors-in-interest of Ilam Din, who according to him, were made allotment of the land in implementation of the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 28-10-1996 i.e, after the repeal of law. Such a beneficiary cannot plead lack of jurisdiction nor can be heard to object to the authority of respondent No, 1.
Thus, the assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No,1 to probe into the allegations of fraud and forgery cannot be regarded as without lawful authority. The precedents cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, proceed on their peculiar facts and circumstances and reliance thereon in the present case is not apt. The allegations of fraud and fabrication rest upon, the examination and consideration of the record which exercise can well be undertaken by respondent No,1. Such a factual probe does not fall within the domain of jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner has rushed in hurry and unnecessarily in filing this petition at a premature stage.
' In view of the above, this petition is dismissed with the observation that respondent No, 1 will afford full opportunity to the petitioner of ' representation and defending himself. No order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.