' This IS an application for quashment of proceedings pending before the ' Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore (Camp Sialkot) under sections 161, 406, 409 and 420, P. P. C.
2. The facts leading to this petition are that Inayat Ullah, deceased father of petitioners 1 and 2, obtained temporary allotment in village Than Wadda, Tehsil Narowal, District Sialkot for maintenance as a refugee from Jammu & Kashmir. Later he got his claim verified and got it satisfied in villages Bhoonewali and Sandhanwala, Tehsil Daska instead of adjusting it against his temporary allotment. The allegation was that either the claim should have been satisfied against the temporary allotment or the temporary allotment should have been cancelled after the claim had been satisfied at other places. Consequently respondent No, 1 brought a private complaint under sections 161, 406, 409 and 420, P. P. C. In the Court of Ch. Mumtaz Muhammad Khan, Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, not against the allottee Inayatullah but against the five petitioners.
Petitioners 1 and 2 are sons of Inayatullah. Petitioners 3 and 4 are wives of petitioner No, 1 whereas petitioner No, 5 is his son. Petitioner No, 2 is a public servant and is posted as a peon with the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Narowal.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that none of the Settlement Authorities or any other competent authority had passed any order holding that the allotment had been obtained by the petitioners fraudulently or with misrepresentation and that no complaint had ever been filed by them. Et is further submitted that the parties to this case have been litigating about the allotment of the property in question which culminated in Writ Petition No, 50-R-75. This petition came up before this Court on 11th March 1978 when it was decided in favour of the petitioners and case remanded for fresh inquiry.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the temporary allotment of Inayatullah deceased, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, had been cancelled in the year 1966 with observations that it has been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and, therefore, it was a fit case to be proceeded before the Criminal Courts. He, however, agreed that none of the Settlement Authorities filed any complaint against the petitioners and that the case in question had been started on a private complaint. He also agreed that the competent authority in the remand proceedings shall be able to go into the question whether the petitioners had committed any fraud or misrepresentation in getting the same land allotted to them.
5. As discussed above the parties to this case are litigating for the allotment of the land in question.
It is, therefore, necessarily a dispute of civil nature between them. The question whether the allotment had been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation had never been decided before. It is admitted that the temporary allotment had been obtained not by the petitioners but by Inayatullah, their predecessor-in-interest. It is stated that the said allotment had been cancelled in the year 1966 and no proceeding had been taken against Inayatullah at the relevant time. The question whether the land in question or other allotments had been obtained by the petitioners through misrepresentation or fraud has not as yet been determined by any competent authority.
The same question, however, can be raised before the authority to which the case has been remanded now. That authority shall be competent to get a case registered or proceedings taken against the petitioners in case be came to the conclusion that any fraud or any contravention of the Act had been committed. The present proceedings therefore, cannot be allowed to continue.
They are, therefore, quashed. The respondent may, however, raise all these points once again in the remand proceedings and the competent authority shall take such action as the situation may warrant after hearing the Parties.