Law: Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958

Section: 25, 10 & 11

Law: Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Law (Repeal) Act (1975)

Section: 3(2)

Law: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)

Section: 41

Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 42

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)------Ss.25, 10 & 11---Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.3(2)---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.41--�Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), S.42---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Evacuee land was initially allotted to one; "M" against his claim, which on an application filed under Ss.10/11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was found to have been made fraudulently against bogus claim and was cancelled by Deputy Commissioner exercising powers of Additional Settlement Commissioner (L)/Chief Settlement Commissioner which order attained finality because it was not interfered by Chief Settlement Commissioner in revision proceedings instituted on behalf of the petitioners---Meanwhile heirs of allottee "M" sold the said land in favour of: "K" vide registered deed who in turn sold the same to "B" and. his brother (respondents) and on the strength of conveyance so obtained by "B" and others (respondents) mutation was also effected in their favour---"B" filed a civil suit for declaration in the Civil Court wherein declaration was sought to the effect that he and his co-sharers were bona fide purchasers of the land---Civil Court passed ex parte decree granting relief as prayed for--�Petitioners, however, claimed that they were in cultivating possession of the land in dispute, thereafter and after cancellation of its allotment from the name of "M" land should have been allotted to them and in pursuance of such claim the Settlement Authorities were about .to concede their request when in the meanwhile they learnt that respondents (B and others) had obtained decree from the Civil Court; petitioners had filed an application under S.12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree on the averments that it had been obtained fraudulently without impleading them as party, as such, being void ab initio, was of no legal effect which was dismissed anti revision also met the same fate; Board of Revenue on appeal ordered the land to be resumed with direction to consider its sale to the petitioners after cancellation of the decree of Civil…