2024 MLD 1995 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Raja Abdul Ghafoor VS Province of Punjab through District Collector, Rawalpindi When a basic order/transaction is void ab initio, the entire series of subsequent orders/transactions, together with the superstructure of rights and obligations built upon them must fall to the ground because such orders have little foundation as the same are based on void order, unless some statute or principle of law recognizing the changed position of the parties as legal, is in operation. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1995 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Raja Abdul Ghafoor VS Province of Punjab through District Collector, Rawalpindi S.10---Cancellation of allotment---Fraud---Jurisdiction of Chief Settlement Commissioner to investigate the legitimacy of evacuee claim and to reverse the allotment orders obtained through fraud---Scope---Suo motu powers of courts/tribunals to review its orders obtained through fraud---Scope---Responsibility of the authorities to address and rectify the effects of fraud---Contention of the petitioner was that after repeal of the Evacuee Laws in the year 1975 the allotment had become a past and closed transaction, thus, the same could not be cancelled without associating him---Validity---Under S.10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the Chief Settlement Commissioner has the jurisdiction to adjudicate or investigate the legitimacy of evacueeclaims and if fraud is found in the allotment process, he can reverse the allotment order---Transaction had been proven to be bogus and fraudulent, thus, the protection of being a past and closed transaction did not apply to such fraudulent transactions, as the same were subject to review by the competent authorities and the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court could not be invoked to shield verification orders of claims obtained through fraud---Fraud undermines even the most solemn proceedings and any structure based on such fraudulent transactions stands automatically dismantled and any ill-gotten gains achieved by fraudster cannot be validated under any norms of law and any benefit/order obtained through fraud, misrepresentation of true facts cannot assume the status of past andclosed transaction and that illegal orders always remain vulnerable to the legal proceedings of investigation---Petitioner had failed to show that initial allotment was genuine and not fraudulent, thus, the contention of petitioner that he was not associated while cancelling mutation passed in his favour was misconceived on the sole principle that fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings---Preponderance of judicial authority is in favour of conceding such a power to every authority, tribunal or court to suo motu recall or review an order obtained through fraud---This is based on the general principle that fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings, and no party should be allowed to take advantage of their fraud---There is no rational basis for discriminating between the powers available in this behalf to a court of general jurisdiction and those available to a court or tribunal of special or limited jurisdiction, as the impact of fraud is the same in either case---Responsibility to address and rectify the effects of fraud lies with the authority before which the fraud was perpetrated and even a tribunal with limited or special jurisdiction has the power to suo moto recall or review an order obtained by fraud---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD