' The facts giving rise to the filing of present writ petition are to the effect that one Fida Hussain predecessor-in-interest of present petitioners, a displaced person from India (Hyderabad Deccan) had filed a claim for the agricultural land left by him in India, which had duly been verified and a certificate in the form of QPR-V had been issued in his favour. This claim of the evacuee bearing No.2489-T was filed for allotment of land in Mauza Chak Kalan. Tehsil Shandara, District Sheikhupura, and was verified for 18399 Produce Index Units. The whole claim of the evacuee Fida Hussain had not been satisfied in Mauza Chak Kalan and a part of the same i.e. 1512 PI Units had been transferred to District Jhang . These units were adjusted in village Mallhuana against 789 Kanals, 3 Marlas land vide Khata No.79 of RL-II. The said land was proposed on 22-9-1961. This land could not be confirmed in the prescribed manner provided in the Rehabilitation Scheme due Co the negligence of the functionaries of the Settlement Department and the father/predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners had expired in the year 1965. This land could not be confirmed due to the dispute and litigation between the legal heirs of the deceased. However, in the year 1966 the petitioners were declared to be the heirs of said Fida Hussain and they made their efforts for confirmation of the land, proposed in the name of their predecessor Fida Hussain and finally the land was confirmed on 4-12-1969.
2. The petitioners being paradah-nasheen ladies were not in a position to take further legal steps and they on their behalf appointed Muhammad Akbar as their Attorney to deposit the necessary fee. The land confirmed in favour of the petitioners had been incorporated in Register Haqdaran-i- Zameen in accordance with the provision of Rule 7-A of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement)
Rules.
3. In the year 1980 when the consolidation proceedings started in the Mauza, the petitiOners were given land measuring 545 Kanal 13 Marlas in lieu of the land already held by them. During the consolidation proceedings, Consolidation Patwari of the village Mallhuana made a report to the higher authorities that the land allotted to the petitioners is bogus and liable to be cancelled. The matter was finally examined by respondent No.2 on 412-9-1981, who declared the land allotted to the petitioners as bogus, result of fraud and fabrication. The petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No.1 which had been dismissed on 23-1-1982.
4. The said orders passed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 have been assailed through the instant writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the land was proposed in the name of Fida Hussain, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in the year 1961 and confirmed in 1969 and after the repeal of Evacuee Laws, it could not be cancelled. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have no authority to interfere with the allotment order passed by Settlement Authorities after repeal of the laws.
6. Parawise comments from respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were called for received and perused, wherein the respondents had taken the stand that there is no proof of transferring of the remaining units of the petitioners' predecessor Fida Hussain to District Jhang. It is further contended that there was interpolation and tampering in the register RL-II and rappat roznamcha of the allotment had been entered.
7. The learned Assistant Advocate-General vehemently opposed the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners by contending that neither the petitioners nor their predecessor-in- interest Fida Hussain was in possession of the land in dispute. The petitioners have been sleeping over their right for such a long span of time and no efforts for delivery of the possession were ever made by them.
8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the record.
9. Today Riaz Ahmad District Officer (Revenue) Jhang alongwith Muhammad Aslam Hayat Patwari and Alamdar Hussain Patwari (Consolidation) appeared in the Court. Register RL-II has been produced wherein in Khata No.79 there is a note of the receipt of certificate with regard to 1512.
Units in Mauza Mallhuana District Jhang but this note is without any signature of the authority and undated. Further the date of proposal of the land in Khata No.79 is mentioned as 22-9-1961 while Khata No.80 was proposed in the year 1960, which is sufficient proof of the fact that entries in the Register RL-II either had been made ante dated or this part/leaf of RL-II has been changed. The significant feature of case is that allottee of the land did not appear before the Authority either at the time of proposal of the allotment of land or later on up to 1965, till his death.
10. The petitioners claim confirmation of the land on 4-12-1969 but they were not put in possession over the said land and they remained absent throughout. Had it been a genuine allotment, the allotted land would have been in possession of the allottees/petitioners. For the first time during consolidation proceedings of the Mauza Mallhuana Parcha Khatuni was shown to them. But the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) Jhang found that it was a bogus allotment and reported the matter to the Collector. The petitioners failed to produce any proof of the remaining unsatisfied units in District Sheikhupura to have been transferred to District Jhang vide a valid order passed by the competent authority. The respondents have categorically denied the receipt of theTransfer Certificate of the remaining unsatisfied units of the petitioners.
11. Since there is a concurrent finding by the Deputy Commissioner Jhang and the appellate authority that the land allotted to the predecessor in interest of petitioners or entries made in Khata No.79 of RL-II of village Mallhuana is a result of fraud and misrepresentation and the allotment made in this Khata was void ab initio.
12. As observed in preceding paragraphs, there is a concurrent finding of fact by respondents Nos.1 and 2 declaring the allotment by act of fraud and such finding of fact would not be disturbed by the High Court. Reference may be made to the case of Akbar Ali and Mst. Rashida Bibi and others (1990 SCM R 1616), Guldar Khan v. Isa Khan (1993 SCM R 2099), Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (1994 PSC 254), Sh. Muhammad Bashir Ali v. Sufi Ghulam Mohay-ud-Din (1996 SCM R 813), Abdul Hakeem v. Habib Ullah (1997 SCM R 1139) and Abdul Qayyum v. Mushk-e- Alam (2001 SCM R 798).
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners when confronted to prove the transfer of produced index units of the petitioners from District Sheikhpura to District Jhang, failed to satisfy the Court. No documentary evidence was produced on the file of this Court to substantiate the assertion of the petitioners that 14512 Units of their Claim were validly/legally had been transferred to District Jhang.
The learned counsel was also confronted with that why the possession of the land has not been taken over by the petitioners he could not respond, except saying that petitioners being ladies were not in a position to obtain the possession of the land. Be that as it may, petitioners had not made any effort or approached any competent authority for delivery of the possession or for implementation of the allotment in the Revenue Record, which is sufficient proof to infer that the allotment in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners at Khata No.79 of RL-II was ingenuine and result of fraud and fabrication.
14. Where the allotment relied upon made by the Settlement Authorities was alleged without jurisdiction and was also based on fraud and forgery in that eventuality the Authority, which exposed fraud and forgery the setting aside this bogus allotment, the High Court would not in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction annul the said order even though it was clearly without jurisdiction. Reliance in this respect can be made to the case of Muhammad Baran and others v.
Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 691).
15. After the repeal of the evacuee law, the Settlement and Rehabilitation Officer being functus officio lacks the jurisdiction to interfere with allotment made in favour of evacuee but the respondents and Board of Revenue being the successors of the Rehabilitation Officer and the Chief Settlement Commissioner having control over the record can on the basis of the earlier record make enquiry and observe their opinion with regard to the fraudulent allotment. In this context reference may be made to the case of Quetta Hindu Punchayat v. Mst. Dilshad Akhtar and 5 others (1993 SCM R 21). In this case same Khasra Nos. 1062/10589/10 situated at Mahal Karaz Ibrahimzai were allotted to one Muhammad Hashim and Muhammad Qasim displaced persons against their claim. This allotment was confirmed on 12-4-1962 and this Mutation No.79 was attested on 27-2- 1964. The Hindu Puehayat approached Governor of Baluchistan, who directed the Board of Revenue to inquire into the matter and the Board observed that it was not an evacuee property and could not be allotted to the allottees Muhammad Hashim and Muhammad Qasim and annulled the allotment made in favour of the allottees, the High Court set side the order of the Board of Revenue but the order passed by the High Court had been set aside by the Supreme Court declaring the allotment in favour of Muhammad Hashim etc. To be without lawful authority.
15. From the perusal of Register RL-II, produced by the D.O. (R) Jhang today in the Court, it reveals that proposal for allotment of the land in Khata No.79 was made on 22-9-1961 while in Khata No.80 of the said RL-II proposal was made in the year 1960, prior to the proposal of allotment of the petitioner. Had it been a genuine proposal in favour of petitioners, it would have been made in the said Khata prior to allotment i.e. Khata No.80 or 82 in the year 1960 and oral entries made in the Register RL-II at Khata No.79 when shown to the learned counsel for the petitioners have not been controverted.
16. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition being devoid of IC force is dismissed.