WALI MUHAMMAD and others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 24-1-1982 concerning the cancellation and subsequent restoration of a land allotment. The core legal question involved the validity of an allotment claimed to be a forgery and the rights of vendees from subsequent allottees. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that a finding of fact by the Settlement Commissioner established that the petitioners had tampered with the relevant revenue records and contrived to obtain a double allotment to create ambiguity, while the original allotment in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents was valid. Furthermore, the court held that transfers in favour of the petitioners took place pending allotment and were hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, with proper notice having been given. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the allotment could not be interfered with, and leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that where an allotment is reinstated based on a finding of fact that the contesting party manipulated records to create a double allotment, and transfers are affected by lis pendens during pending proceedings, such allotment remains protected and immune from interference.
- Whether an allotment can be set aside on the ground of double allotment when the contesting party is found to have manipulated records to create ambiguity?
- Are transfers made pending allotment proceedings hit by the doctrine of lis pendens?
- Whether vendees from subsequent allottees with notice acquire a valid title when the underlying allotment is found to be a result of record tampering?
ORDER
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The petitioners who claim to be vendees from subsequent allottees of resumed land seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 24-1- 1982.
2. ' Fattu, the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents received an allotment against his verified claim in village Mansandhu, tehsil & district Gujranwala on 13-12-1957. On an application moved by Mst. Najmunnisa allotment in favour of Fattu was cancelled after it was found that he had against the same claim obtained allotment in village Randhir in the same district. He successfully filed a settlement revision against this decision. The petitioners contested the restoration of the allotment in village Mansandu on various grounds but failed. Hence this petition.
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that ordinarily he could have no grievance with the abstract proposition that in case of double allotment against one verified claim, the earlier allotment should hold good and it is only the subsequent allotment which would be tainted and liable to be set aside. It is further contended that in this case there was a distinguishing feature which appears prominently in the order of authority exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 21st September, 1967. A finding of fact was recorded therein that the allotment in village Mansandhu was a forgery and fabrication and as such that allotment could not be allowed to stand in the name of the claimant.
4. ' We have examined the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and find that the facts made the basis for the order referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners came to be reviewed and reconsidered in the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 30-11- 1978. This happened after the earlier order had been set aside by the High Court and the case was remanded. In this order a finding of fact materially different from the one relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners was recorded. It was held that it was the petitioners who managed to tamper with the R.L. II No, 243 village Masandu and also contrived to obtain the allotment R.L. II No, 374 of Randhir in order to make the first entitlement ambiguous. On this finding of fact which stands on the record and remains unsubstituted the allotment in village Masandhu could not be interfered with. As regards the question of vendees from subsequent allottees, it has been pointed out in the judgment under appeal that the transfer had taken place pending allotment and in the circumstances was hit by the doctrine of lis pendent and from the record it appears that the petitioners had proper notice at the appropriate stage. There is no merit in the petition and leave to appeal is refused.