Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Writ Petition No. 371 of 1978, decided on 15th February, 1982.
--------Art. 199‑Personal hearing‑Opportunity‑Order of Settlement Commissioner cancelling allotment of petitioner and resuming land challenged on ground that petitioner being a bona fide purchaser for value not afforded reasonable opportunity to appear and represent his view point‑‑Notice to appear appearing in Press on date fixed for hearing‑Principle of natural justice of allowing reasonable oppor tunity, held, not followed in letter and spirit‑Impugned order without jurisdiction and illegal set aside, in circumstances‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched. I.
Ahmad Hassan Khan for Petitioners.
Riasat Ali for Respondent No. 1.
Nemo for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing : 15th February, 1982.
The facts necessary for the disposal of the controversy raised in this constitution petition are that agricultural land measuring 52 kanals 8 marlas situated in village Chahar, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura was confirmed at Khata No. 11 of R, L. 11 in the name of Muhammad Ahmad on 25‑4‑1969. The confirmed allottee sold the land in dispute to Akhtar Beg who then conveyed the rights in the land in favour of Muhammad Saeed from whom petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 and Allah Bakhsh, predecessor of petitioners Nos. 4 to 7 purchased this land vide Sale Deed dated 27‑5‑1976. Prior to this sale an application dated 19‑6‑1974 was allegedly pending under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. This application was received by Assistant Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner, Ferozewala on 11‑6‑1976. One of the petitioners namely Alaf Khan was cited as respondent, but the other petitioners who had purchased the land alongwith Alaf Khan were not impleaded.
2. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner ordered substituted service of the respondents for 14‑1‑1978 through publication in the press. This notice was admittedly published in Daily Saadat' of 14‑1‑1978. It is apparent that the day on which the notice was published, was the date of hearing. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) vide his ex parte order dated 4‑2‑1978 cancelled the allotment and resumed the land in dispute. This order is under challenge in this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners being bona fide purchasers for value, were entitled to a hearing before cancell ation of the allotment and resumption of the land and that there was no occasion for ordering substituted service. It is further contended that in any case petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 were not associated in the said proceedings and as the notice appeared in the newspaper on the date on which the case was fixed for hearing, that notice failed to afford reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to appear and to represent their point of view before the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioners having purchased the land on 27‑5‑1976 during the pendency of the application have no locus standi. This argument is not available to the contesting respondent in this case as he had himself cited one of the petitioners as respondent in his application. Alaf Khan having been impleaded as a party by the contesting respondent himself, he was to be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, has fairly conceded that as the notice of hearing was published on the very day, the case was fixed for hearing, the principle of natural justice of allowing fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing cannot be said to have been followed in letter and spirit.
In view of the matter above, there is no alternative but to declare the impugned order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner as without jurisdic tion and illegal as the same was passed without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. The order dated 4‑2‑1978 is, therefore, quashed. The matter shall stand remitted to the notified officer for decision afresh in accordance with law after providing opportunity to the parties. No order as to costs.
M. Y. M.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer