MAQBOOL AHMED and 2 others vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and 9 others
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed their application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The underlying dispute concerns the allotment of evacuee land originally allotted to one Shukar Din, which was subsequently cancelled. Various parties filed 'Mukhbari' applications seeking the land. The High Court had previously directed the allotment of this land to the respondents (successors of an earlier Mukhbar). The petitioners, who claimed to be purchasers of the land from a subsequent allottee (respondent No. 10), challenged this High Court judgment, alleging it was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, and the deliberate omission of necessary parties. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the land should have been allotted to the first Mukhbar in preference to others, and whether the impugned judgment was procured through fraud and the failure to implead the petitioners. The Court ordered the maintenance of status quo regarding the disputed land pending the appeal.
- Whether the cancellation of an original land allotment requires the land to be allotted to the first Mukhbar in preference to subsequent applicants?
- Can a judgment be challenged on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation for failing to implead parties who derived interest in the disputed property?
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ' MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO, J.---Petitioners Maqbool Ahmad, Rashid Ahmad and Rafique Ahmad have sought leave to appeal against the judgment dated 10-7-1996 delivered by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, dismissing their application, which they had moved under section 12(2) of C.P.,C. Against the judgment dated 27-4-1994 delivered by Lahore High Court in writ Petition No,246-R of 1991, challenging the same to have been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.
2. ' One Shukar Din was allotted 218 Kanals and 18 Marlas evacuee land in village Chattar, District Sialkot. For challenging said allotment, three Mukhbari applications were moved. The application dated 19-9-1973 was moved by Ilam Din, predecessor of respondents 2 to 6. Another application dated 9-6-1974 was moved by Hamid Khaldi and others. Third application dated 28-6-1974 was moved by Taj Din and others including Gulzar respondent No,10. The Settlement Commissioner (Land), Lahore under an order dated 14-1-1977 cancelled the allotment made in favour of Shukar Din and resumed the same. The disputed land was, however, allotted to Gulzar Ahmad and others on the basis of their Mukhbari application dated 28-6-1974. Again on 2-4-1977 the disputed land was allotted to Gulzar Ahmad respondent No,10. Present petitioners claimed to have purchased the disputed property from Gulzar Ahmad on 23-2-1978 for consideration.
3. ' The legal heirs of deceased Ilam Din respondents 2 to 6 and Muhammad Rafique respondent No,1 filed Writ Petition No,246-R of 1991 in Lahore High Court for a direction to the respondents 8 to 9, to act in accordance with law and implement the order dated 24-1-1977 in favour of respondents 1 to 6 and to cancel allotment order issued in favour of respondent No,10. Under a judgment dated 27- 4-1994, a learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted the Writ Petition and set aside the order dated 28-11-1975 and directed respondent No,8 to take necessary action for allotment/confirmation of the disputed land in names of respondents 1 to 6 as successors-in- interest of the Mukhbar.
4. ' Aggrieved by the said judgment the present petitioners moved an application under section 12(2) of C.P.C. In the High Court for a declaration that the said judgment dated 27-4-1994 had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and concealment of true facts. Under the impugned judgment dated 10-7-1996, a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioners' application under section 12(2) of C.P.C. Hence this petition.
5. ' After hearing Mr. Taqi Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Syed Munir Hussain Shafi, learned counsel for caveator, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal. Leave to appeal is granted to consider:-
(i) Whether in consequence of cancellation of allotment of the land in litigation in favour of Shukar Din, the same required to be allotted to Ilam Din or his legal heirs as first Mukhbar in preference to respondent No,10 Gulzar Ahmad and Taj Din etc., whose Mukhbari application against Shukar Din's allotment was moved on 28-6-1974?
(ii) Whether writ petitioners Gulab Din and others, now respondents No,2 to 6 and No,1, obtained the judgment dated 27-4-1994 in their favour by fraud and misrepresentation and by omitting to implead in their writ Petition the petitioners deriving their interest in the disputed property from respondent No,10 Gulzar Ahmad?
6. ' Status quo to be maintained in respect of the suit land.
Cited by 1 case
- Mst. LALAN BIBI and others Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN 2007 SCMR 1193