On a complaint submitted by one Muhammad Raza, an enquiry was conducted by the Chief Minister's Inspection Team into the alleged fraudulent and fictitious creation of rights in land belonging to the Government. The report was submitted to the Chief Minister on, 27th April, 1988.
The Chief Minister, Punjab vide his order, dated 17th August, 1988 approved the proposals submitted by Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab who had endorsed the findings of C.M.I.T. To the effect that serious irregularities/offences like tampering with official record, fabrication of false evidence, forging of fictitious and bogus allotment orders, fraud, impersonation; misrepresentation of facts, false statement in Court, etc. Had been committed.
2. Facts as borne out from the record are that one Muhammad Mazhar Ullah Khan claimed to have obtained allotment of land in village Jhuggian Nagra measuring 253 Kanals, 12 Marlas against his professed verified claim at RL-II No.7, dated 2nd June, 1971. He through his attorney filed a civil suit in 1985 seeking directions to be issued by the Court to the Revenue Authorities for incorporation of the alleged allotment in the Revenue Record by way of mutation. The suit was decreed ex pane. The attorney of the decree-holder submitted an application to A.D.C.(G)/Collector, Lahore Cantt. For implementation of the order of the Civil Court. A.D.C.(G)/Collector, Lahore Cantt. Gave directions on 19th of March, 1988 for giving effect to the order and decree of the Civil Court. The order, however, was not incorporated in the Revenue Record by way of mutation. Shaukat A.I, etc. Who claimed to have purchased this land from National Industrial Finance Corporation who in turn claimed to have acquired the so--called ownership of the subject land from the, alleged allottee Muhammad Mazhar Ullah Khan filed writ petition in the High Court. This writ petition was later withdrawn by the petitioners. The petitioners somehow succeeded in getting the Mutation No.7690 sanctioned on the basis of the decree and order of the Civil Court. This mutation was sanctioned on 16th January, 1995.
3. On 19-2-1995, Tehsildar/A.C.-I, Lahore City moved a case to D.C. /Collector for review of Mutation No.7690 by which the Provincial Government land was mutated in favour of Muhammad Mazhar Ullah Khan, Mutation No.76991 by which the same land was transferred by Muhammad Mazhar Ullah Khan in favour of National Industrial Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited and Mutation No.7692 by which the land was transferred by National Industrial Cooperative Finance Cooperation to Shaukat A.I etc. D.C./Collector vide his order, dated 1st March, 1995 allowed review of mutation.
The said three mutations were reviewed and cancelled. Shaukat A.I and 36 others who claim to have obtained ownership rights from National Industrial Finance Corporation Limited filed a revision petition before Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division. The revision was dismissed vide order, dated 8th May, 1995 with the following observation:-------- "The minute perusal of the revision reveals that it is an interesting case in which various persons of all walks of life sitting behind the scene are out to grab the valuable property in question. The area is situated in Tehsil City whereas the necessary orders for incorporation of Register RL-11, Khata, was obtained by A.D.C.(G) Cantt. On-19-3-1986. The said order of A.D. C.(G) may be wrong or right but the same has been made foundation to get the forged allotment of Mazhar Ullah Khan implemented in the Revenue Record. Mazhar Ullah Khan an alleged allottee of evacuee property has never appeared before any Court. I have also recorded the statement of Ch. Muhammad Rafique Warraich, counsel for the appellants. In this respect who stated that according to his information supplied by the petitioners, Mazhar Ullah Khan had gone to Karachi where he is alleged to have died. He further stated that he even does not know the whereabouts of his general power of attorney, Mr. Lutaf-ul-Manan who sold the land in question to N.I.F.C. Presently all the petitioners are being represented by Shaukat A.I (?) and Muhammad Nazir being general power of attorney. In view of what has been stated above, it is a case of forged allotment of evacuee land which has subsequently been cancelled. The District Collector vide his impugned order allowed review of mutations which were attested on the basis of the abovementioned forged and fake allotment and Tehsildar acted upon accordingly. The appellants instead of challenging the cancellation of allotment of Mazhar Ullah Khan who is reported to be no more in this world, have challenged the mutations. A building cannot stand without its foundation. Therefore, the revision having no force is dismissed in limine."
4. The present revision petition has been filed against this order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, dated 8th May, 1995.
5. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that land was validly allotted to Muhammad Mazhar Ullah Khan vide Khata No.7 of R.L.-II in the year 1971. Since the land had been subjected to river action and was Darya Burd, as such the order of allotment could not be implemented in the Revenue Record. Many efforts were made by the holders of rights in the said land for implementation of the allotment in the Revenue Record by way of mutation. They could not succeed before the revenue functionaries and, therefore, they sought recourse to Civil Court from where they obtained a decree for incorporation of the allotment in the Revenue Record. Many other points have been taken in the body of revision petition such as (i) the impugned order of Additional Commissioner is against law and fact of the case as having been passed in an arbitrary manner,
(ii) the settlement laws having been repealed in 1974, no settled case could be reopened, on a miscellaneous application not connected with pending proceedings, (iii) the petitioners are bona fide purchasers of land in question from N.I.C.F.C. Who had purchased the same from its original transferee whose title towards the land in dispute stood established by a decree of Civil Court, dated 15-12-1984. The mutation of land in dispute sanctioned on the basis of decree of Civil Court were not open to respondent authorities to review, (iv) the learned D.C./Collector based his order, dated 1-3-1995 on the field reports without applying his independent judicial mind, (v) the learned D.C./Collector fell in error in equating the report of the Chief Minister Inspection Team at par with order of cancellation of allotment from the name of original transferee, (vi) the learned Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by A.D.C.(G)/Collector Cantt./Notified Officer, (vii) the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of being heard by the learned Collector while granting permission to review the said mutations, .(viii) the order and decree of the Civil Court is binding on the Revenue Authorities and they are under legal obligation to give effect to the said order and decree of the Civil Court substantiated by order, dated 19th March, 1998 of Notified Officer. The said decree and order is still intact after the dismissal of application filed by Government under section 12(2) of C. P. C. It is prayed that the order of D. C. /Collector as well as Additional Commissioner being void and illegal should be set aside.
6. Province of Punjab through Secretary (Revenue), Punjab, Lahore has been shown as respondent in this case. A report was called for from D.C./Collector which was received on 11-12-1999. It is stated in this report that the alleged allotment of land shown to have been made at Khata RL-II N'o.7 on 2- 6-1971, in the name of Muhammad Mazhar Ullah Khan son of Tahir Ullah Khan is bogus and anti- dated. The alleged allotment is shown to have been made in 1971 but the mutation of transfer of proprietary rights in favour of the said allottee, is shown to have been sanctioned on lfi-1-1995. The National Industrial Cooperative Finance Corporation is shown to have purchased the said land on 27-7-1985 which is apparently a fraudulent transaction and is illegal and non-existent in the eyes of law because at that time the allottee/vendor himself was not shown in the Revenue Record as owner of the said land. The assertion that the land in dispute had gone under the river, therefore, the allotment could not be implemented in the Revenue Record, is erroneous and baseless. If the alleged allotment had validly been made and was factually in existence in 1971, there could be no hindrance in the implementation of the same in the Revenue Record irrespective of the fact whether the land was Darya Burd. The Chief Settlement Commissioner issued instructions on 19-6- 1978 to the effect that any allotment that had not been incorporated in the Revenue Record before coming into force of the Repealing Act XIV of 1975 or within one year of the passing of allotment order, whichever is later, should be deemed to have been obtained fraudulently by anti-dating the entries in the Register RL-11 and that such allotment should be cancelled forthwith. In the present case, the alleged allotment was not found to have incorporated in the Revenue Record within one year from the date of allotment or before repeal of Settlement Laws w.e.f. 1-7-1974. Neither the allottee nor the subsequent purchasers ever made any effort to take possession of the land in dispute at any stage. The alleged allottee also did not ever apply for incorporation of the said allotment in the Revenue Record before the repeal of Settlement Laws or within one year from the date of allotment, therefore, the alleged Khata is bogus and ante-dated beyond any doubt. Since the original allotment itself was bogus one, therefore, the subsequent transactions based on such bogus and ante--dated allotment, have no legal value in the eye of lave. In support of this contention PLD 1991 SC 691 has been referred to in which it was held that if allotments relied upon were illegal and without jurisdiction and indeed after they were also based on fraud and forgery in that eventuality, even if Member, Board of Revenue, which exposed fraud and forgery and set aside illegal transfer of properties by its own order, High Court would not annul the order even if it was clearly without jurisdiction. A fraud is always a fraud and it is well-settled law that nobody can be allowed to reap the fruit of fraud and retain ill-gotten gains. As regards the decree, dated 15-2-19$4 of the Civil Court, it is stated that the said decree was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation and the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. For setting aside the said decree was filed and the matter is still pending with the Civil Court/District Judge, Lahore.
7. I have given careful consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and also examined the contents of the report submitted by D.C./Collector, Lahore. Other documents available on the record of this case have also be examined. The salient features are:--
(a) The allotment of land in the name of Muhammad Mazhat UIIah Khan was reported to have been made in the year 1971. Chief Minister's Inspection Team which was tasked to hold an enquiry on a .Complaint has this to say in its report: 'If the allotment of land was genuinely made in 1971, there was no reason why the allottee kept silent for 13 years and did not get the allotment order implemented in Revenue Record by getting a mutation entered on the basis of Khata No.7 of R.L.-II. He did not even get possession of the land allotted to him. The allottee filed a suit on 3-9-1984 for getting mutation entered in his name in the Revenue Record on the basis of this allotment. The suit was decided in his favour ex parte on 15-12- 1984. There was delay of 13 years in filing the civil suit. The file of civil suit Muhammad Mazhar Ullah Khan v. (1) Province of Punjab, (2) Collector, Lahore, (3) Revenue Patwari, Jhuggian Nagra decided by Mr. Khalid Saeed Akhtar on 15-12-1984 (consigned to record room vide General No.5054, dated 23-12-1984 Basta Mozang) was examined. The following significant points were noted:
(i) That Bashir Ahmad, the then Patwari, Jhuggian Nagra, defendant No.3 appeared in the Court and Sardar Muhammad Naseem, the then Settlement Clerk to A.D.C.(G), Lahore appeared on behalf of defendants Nos. l and 2.
(ii) That without any letter of authority from the Collector, Lahore, the said clerk was allowed to represent the Collector and Province of Punjab by the Civil Court.
(iii) That the same clerk, Sardar Muhammad Naseem, did not attend the Court on 31-10-1984 and thereupon ex parte proceedings were ordered against the Collector of the Punjab Government.
(iv) That on 20-11-1984, the same clerk appeared as a witness of the plaintiff and recorded the statement. The suit was, thus, decreed ex parte against the Government on 15-12-1984.
(v) The Civil Judge had apparently no jurisdiction under the law to issue mandatory injunction for entering or not entering the mutation as envisaged by section 172 of the Land Revenue Act.
The page bearing Khata No.7 R.L.-II Register appears to have been added subsequently and pasted to the binding cover of the register.
It is separate from other pages. The original Register R.L.II was produced by Ch. Muhammad Sharif, E.A:C.(R), Lahore and was returned to him after inspection.
Ch. Hamad Ilahi, Tehsildar, disowned the signatures shown as 'Hamad Ilahi' on R.L.II Khata No.7. He stated that he was not posted in Lahore in 1971, i.e. At the time of this allotment. He was last posted in Lahore in 1965 as Naib-Tehsildar and he retired as Tehsildar, Border Allotment Committee in 1972.
Thus, the question of his signing Register R.L.II in 1971 does not arise.
Mr. Abdul Rehman, Junior Clerk, who was Settlement Ahalmad to A.D. C.(C) at that time and who used to fill columns 1 to 4 and 8 to 11 of R. L. II Registers under the order of A. D. C. (C), also disowned the handwriting of this allotment on the Khata No.7 of R.L.II. He also stated that the handwriting and signatures of Malik Khurshid Ahmad, the then A.D.C.(C), now retired are also not genuine but forged. He further stated that handwriting of Malik Khurshid Ahmad was typical being scribed and illegible handwriting whereas handwriting in Khata No.7 in question was clearly legible.
Khata No.7 of R.L.II in question does not bear the signatures or thumb-impression of the allottee in its relevant columns although the other Khatas of the same R.L.II had been signed or thumb- marked by the concerned allottees. On all other Khatas of this R.L.II there is a Patwari's report that the proposed Khata numbers were actually available for allotment whereas there is no such report of this Khata. Although the address of Malik Khurshid Ahmed; A.D.C.(C) (Retd.) could not be traced even from SGA&I Department, the subordinates who had worked under him namely Mr. Abdul Majid Borala, the then Peshi Kanungo, Mr. Abdul Rehman, Junior Clerk, Mr. Abdul Samad, Patwari stated that Khata No.7 of R.L.II did not bear the handwriting and signatures of Malik Khurshid Ahmed. It is, thus, evident that Khata No.7 of R.L.II in the name of Muhammad Mazhar Ullah Khan is bogus'.
(b) No effort by the so-called allottee or his attorney was ever made for implementation of the said allotment till the year 1985 when the suit was instituted.
(c) The decree was passed ex parte. Although contention of D.C./Collector, Lahore is that no notice was served while appearance of some officials with a view to giving consenting statements is borne out from the record.
(d) The application under section 12(2) of C.P.C. Having been filed abortively, now the case for reconsideration of the facts is pending adjudication before District Judge, Lahore. Despite the report of C.M.I.T. And the observations of the learned Member, Board of Revenue and the orders of Chief Minister for initiating action against the forged and fictitious allotment made, the Revenue Officer sanctioned Mutations Nos.7690, 7691 and 7692. A case has also been got registered with the Anti-Corruption Establishment for fraud and forgery.
(e) Notification, dated 19-6-1978 clearly lays down that any allotment that had not been incorporated in the Revenue Record before coming into force of the Repealing Act XIV of 1975 or within one year of the passing of allotment order, whichever is later, should be deemed to have been obtained fraudulently by ante-dating the entries in the Register R.L.-II and that such allotments should be cancelled forthwith. Notification, dated 5th September, 1979 lays down that allotments obtained on the basis of forged or fabricated orders are total nullity in the eyes of law and, therefore, should be ignored as non-existent and the land treated as still available for disposal.
(f) Section 172 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Court in matters relating to correction of any entry in a record of rights, periodical record or register of mutations.
8. The facts as narrated above, in brief, are that allotment against professed verified claim of one Muhammad Mazharullah Khan was shown to have been made in the year 1971 on R.L.-II at page 7, on a sheet which is different in colour than the rest of the pages of the register as established in the C.M.I.T. Report. This alleged allotment was not incorporated in the Revenue Record till the year 1995.
The ex parte decree was made the basis by the Notified Officer for issuance of directions to the Revenue Officer Halqa for incorporation of the said allotment in the Revenue Record. These directions purportedly were issued in the year 1988. The enquiry by C.M.I.T. Was concluded on 25th of April, 1988 wherein the said allotment was declared to be bogus and an act of forgery. The then Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab concerned with the findings of the C.M.I.T. The Chief Minister of the Punjab gave orders for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Government officials found involved in the acts such as tampering with the official record (preparation of fake R.L.-II sheet), fabrication of false evidence, forging of fictitious and bogus allotment orders, fraud, impersonation, misrepresentation of facts, false statements in Court, etc. The Revenue Officer Halqa despite the absence of any valid order setting aside the findings of the C.M.I.T. And the order of the then Chief Minister, proceeded to sanction Mutations Nos.7690, 7691 and 7692.
9. The crucial question' for determination is whether--
(i) the allotment alleged to have been made under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 before the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act of 1975 could be implemented in the Revenue Record especially when no application to that effect was pending with the concerned Settlement Authorities immediately before the Repealing Act of 1975.
(ii) Section 172(vi) of Land Revenue Act, 1967 excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Court in matters relating to the correction of any entry in a record of rights, periodical record of register of mutations.
10. Adverting to preposition (ii), unfortunately the order and decree of the Civil Court are not available on the file of this Court. It is a settled proposition of law that directions can be issued by the Civil Court to the Revenue functionaries to give effect to any determination made by it in respect of title, right, interest of an individual in some property. Whether the Civil Court has authority to determine genuineness or otherwise of an allotment claimed to have been made under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 is best left to the superior judicial fora.
Even if the Civil Court comes to the conclusion, notwithstanding jurisdictional aspect, that an allotment is genuine, can it issue directions to the Revenue Authorities to incorporate mutation to that effect? The answer will follow a brief resume of the instructions of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities. For the purpose of determining the legal tenability of the orders of the Revenue Officer in sanctioning Mutations Nos.7690, 7691 and 7692, one is constrained to divert one's attention to the policy instructions of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing of the Board of Revenue. In Letter No.766/79/2216-T(L), dated 5-9-1979, it' is laid down that "bogus allotments" can be categorised into:--
(a) Allotments made per incuriam by an officer competent to do so without having regard to facts and law or by misconstruing evidence brought on record or by ignoring important piece of evidence.
(b) Allotments obtained on the basis of forged/fabricated orders.
As regards (a) above, obviously no Settlement Authority can interfere after the repeal of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement), Act, 1958 except in cases which were instituted before 1-7-1974 or which have been remanded by the Supreme Court or a High Court as laid in section 2 of Act No.XIV of 1975. As far (b) it may be observed that allotments obtained on the basis of forged or fabricated orders are total nullity in the eyes of law and therefore, should be ignored as non-existent and the land treated as still available for disposal.
11. Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing, Board of Revenue, Notification No.1624/78/854, dated 19th June, 1978 is also relevant. It states at para. l:-- "The Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member, Board of Revenue (S&R), Punjab, has been pleased to decide that any allotment that has not been incorporated in the Revenue Record before coming into force of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 or within one year of the passing of allotment order, whichever is later, may be deemed to have been obtained fraudulently by anti-dating the entries in the Register R.L.-II and should be cancelled forthwith, after hearing objections, if any, of the so-called allottee."
12. Revenue Officer Halqa at the time of attestation of the aforesaid mutations had the advantage of the existence of the report of C.M.I.T. Which established the so-called allotment of 1971 in favour of Muhammad Mazharullah Khan as an act of forgery. As per policy/law, the Revenue Officer Halqa was legally bound not to give effect to such allotment in the Revenue Record. The Notified Officer i.e. A.D.C.(G), Lahore Cantt. Had to act upon the directions contained in the policy letter, dated 19th June, 1978 and instead of issuing directions for incorporation of the alleged allotment in the Revenue Record he was required to cancel it after hearing objections of the allottee. His directions addressed to Revenue Officer were devoid of any legal force and should have been ignored.
D.C./Collector on 'report, dated 19th February, 1995 submitted by Revenue Officer seeking review of these directions, accorded his approval vide his order, dated 1st of March, 1995. There was no infirmity in this order. Additional Commissioner (Revenue) upheld this order in accordance with law and facts of the case. The concurrent findings of the two lower Courts suffer from no legal lacuna and therefore, admit of no interference. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed. 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.