SARDAR MUHAMMAD KHAN ALVI AND Another vs BASHIR AHMAD AND 7 Other

ORDER

1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The dispute between the parties is in respect of 305 kanals, 17 marlas in Chak No. 127/G. B., Tehsil Jaranwala, allotted to the respondents who are heirs of one Niaz Din. The claim of one Niaz Din was received in the above Chak. Sometime, thereafter, the authorities came to the conclusion that Niaz Din, had died and inheritance mutation was sanctioned in favour of the respondents on the 29th December 1953. It was alleged that this was done in view of the Government instructions that widows and orphans may be treated as special class allottees and may be allotted lands in the Chak for which they have registered their claim forms. These lands were allotted to the respondents from 3rd August 1954 to 20th of January 1957. The allotments of these lands were challenged by Sardar Muhammad Khan Alvi and Faqir Khan petitioners on the allegation that Bashir Ahmad etc., heirs of Niaz Din had fraudulently secured allotments in Chak No. 127/G. B. As special class allottees by falsely alleging that they were orphans and widow of right- holder Niaz Din. The Settlement authorities found these allegations to be correct.They held that Niaz Din died on the 5th November 1958, long after the inheritance mutation was sanctioned and the transfer of Niaz Din's claim from Chak No. 362/J. B. To Chak No. 127/G. B. Was irregular and not in pursuance of any valid order. On this finding the allotments obtained by heirs of Niaz Din in Chak No. 127/G. B. Were cancelled and the petitioners were held entitled to the said lands as informers.

2. These orders were passed by the Rehabilitation authorities on the 2 November 1961 and 15th June 1962. Respondents challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 1373/R of 1962, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on the 21 September 1965. Letters Patent Appeal No. 444 of 1966 was also dismissed on the 22nd November 1968. It was held by the Letters Patent Bench thatnd st it was established that Niaz Din was alive when the respondent put forward the claim that he was dead. That there was no doubt that the inheritance mutation was procured by false representation and, therefore, any benefit arrived under it cannot be upheld.

3. The case of respondents throughout was that they did not secure the inheritance mutation of Niaz Din by any misrepresenta--tion or fraud. They, therefore, filed Review Application No. 6 of 1.969 on the basis of some fresh documentary evidence which supported their case. A Division Bench of the West Pakistan High Court, by judgment dated the 22nd November 1969, on the fresh evidence produced by the respondents, has come to the conclusion that no fraud has been committed by Bashir Ahmad in order to get the inheritance mutation sanctioned. According to the evidence produced before the High Court, it was revealed that it was on account of the sympathetic consideration of the Department and the disappearance of NiazDin that the inheritance mutation was sanctioned in favour of Bashir Ahmad and others. The High Court, therefore, has remanded the case to the Settle--ment authorities for consideration of the question whether the petitioners have preferential rights for the allotment of the land in dispute. This order is being challenged in this petition for special leave to appeal.