BASHIR AHMAD Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that upheld a decision by the Settlement Commissioner regarding the allotment of 64 Kanals and 6 Marlas of land. The land was originally allotted to a Jammu and Kashmir refugee in 1963 and confirmed in 1966. The petitioners claimed the land based on an alleged earlier allotment in 1966, which they sought to enforce by having the respondent's transfer cancelled. The Settlement Commissioner, however, found that the petitioners' claim was based on tampered records and forged signatures from revenue officials, and that the land had already been validly confirmed to the respondent. The High Court dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging this finding. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' claim was invalid due to the prior allotment to the refugee and the established finding that the petitioners' own allotment documents were tainted by forgery. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that an allotment based on forged documents cannot be sustained against a valid prior claim.
- Can an allotment of land be sustained when it is based on forged documents and tampered records?
- Does a prior valid allotment of land to a refugee preclude a subsequent claim by another party?
- Is a finding of fact regarding forgery by a Settlement Commissioner binding in writ jurisdiction?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J .‑‑The dispute between the parties relates to 64 Kanals and 6 Marlas of land situate in Chak No.34‑R of Tehsil Sheikhupura. It was allotted together with some other land on 12‑9‑1963 to respondent No.2 as Jammu and Kashmir refugee. It was confirmed against his claim on 10‑10‑1966.
2. It appears that on 21‑3‑1966, the land in dispute was allotted to one Gama, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners. After receiving the allotment, the petitioners moved an application for the cancellation of the transfer made in favour of respondent No.2 An Additional Settlement Commissioner allowed the application on 29‑7‑1968. Respondent No.2 challenged the order of Additional Settlement Commissioner in revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner. The Settlement Commissioner found that the land in dispute stood confirmed in favour of respondent No.2 on 10‑10‑1966 and that by tampering with the dates the petitioners made the record to show that they had received the transfer of the land in dispute on 21‑3‑1966. He also noticed that the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the Tehsildar who were alleged to have made the transfer in favour of the petitioners disowned their signatures and described them as forgeries. Accordingly, he accepted the revision petition, set aside the order of transfer made in favour of the petitioners and restored the allotment of respondent No.2. The petitioners challenged the order of the Settlement Commissioner in writ jurisdiction but without any success. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. Apart from the consideration that the land in dispute could not be given to the petitioners on account of its earlier allotment in favour of a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir, there is a finding by the Settlement Commissioner that the petitioners' allotment was tainted with forgeries. This finding has not been displaced. This petition is, therefore, clearly misconceived and is dismissed as such.
M.I./B‑64/S Petition dismissed.