Mst. FAZAL BIBI vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION AUTHORITIES AND ANOTHER
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court order that upheld the rejection of her claim to purchase agricultural land by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who had secured land allotments based on false claims regarding the death of her father and uncle, qualified for the purchase of land under the specific concessions provided by the Memorandum dated January 25, 1960, and the subsequent Memorandum dated January 8, 1961. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner did not qualify for the purchase of land because her claims were fraudulent, as her father and uncle were alive and in possession of lands in India at the relevant time, contrary to her representations. The Court affirmed that the concessions were intended for displaced persons whose parents were in possession of land in India or who were allotted land in anticipation of succession, neither of which applied to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, finding no legal or factual grounds to interfere with the Settlement authorities' decision.
- Does a claimant who obtains land allotments based on false representations regarding the death of their relatives qualify for the purchase of land under the Memorandum dated January 25, 1960?
- Are displaced persons who obtained land allotments based on false claims entitled to the concessions provided under the Memorandum dated January 8, 1961?
- Martial Law Regulation 64
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD YAQUB Au, J-The petitioner claims the right to purchase agricultural land which was allotted to her on the basis of false claims filed by her in the name of her father and uncle. The Settlement authorities rejected the claim on the finding that her case was not covered by the Memorandum No, 6308-59-392 R(P) dated the 25th January 1960, which provided that displaced persons whose parents were in possession of land in India may if they so like purchase the land in their possession on certain conditions.
2. This concession was made available to allotted under para 47 of the Settlement Scheme. The petitioner had, however, acquired land on false claims verified in the names of her father and uncle who were alive and in possession of their lands in India. She did not, therefore, qualify for purchase of land in accordance with the principles enunciated in the Scheme for sale of resumed land under Martial Law Regulation 64.
3. ' The High Court has agreed with the view taken by the Settlement authorities and dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
4. ' Leave to appeal is asked for now on grounds which are not tenable in law or facts. It has been rightly held by the Settlement authorities that the B petitioner is not qualified to purchase the land under the aforesaid memorandum dated the January 25, 1960. Her case was also not covered by the later memorandum issued on January 8, 1961, which dealt with the case of displaced persons who were allotted lands in anticipation of their succession to lands in possession of their parents in India. It is obvious that the petitioner did not obtain land in anticipation of succession to her father and uncle. Indeed, she represented that both her father and uncle had died when she migrated to Pakistan.
5. ' We, accordingly, find no ground to interfere with the orders passed by the Settlement authorities and dismiss the petition for leave to appeal.