Find a Lawyer

‑‑ No. 84 [as amended by Martial Law Regulation 89]‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 ‑ Surrendered .land ‑ Purchase of‑ Petitioner exercising his option to purchase surrendered land and filing application‑Statement of petitioner recorded by Deputy Commissioner and documents received ‑ Application requiring decision by a competent authority but disposed of on a note by an Upper Division Clerk by putting down file' and affixing signature Copy of order not supplied on ground that same formed part of office record ‑ Proceedings, held, concluded without lawful authority and set aside‑Authorities directed to examine rights of petitioner after hearing him with reference to Martial Law Regulation in accordance with law.

Ch. Muhammad Ahmad Bani for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 26th April, 1982.

On verification of the petitioner's claim for 2738 produce index units on form of Q. P. R. V. he was allotted land measuring 2746 Kanals (Banjar Qadim) in Mauza )hangi Ram Tehsil Bhakkar, District Mianwafi, at R L‑II No. 6. On account of Martial Law Regulation No. 84 as amended by Martial Law Regulation No. 89, his entitlement was reverified for 1872 units, reducing the entitlement by 866 P. 1. Units. Consequently, land measuring 859 Kanals was surrendered and it was cancelled from his name vide order dated 21st November, 1951. In accordance with the aforesaid Martial Law Regulations as amended by Martial Law Regulation No. 91 the petitioner was entitled to exercise an option to purchase the surrendered land. According to him, he exercised that option and filed an application through the Tehsildar, Bhakkar, on 19th February, 1.962. No action was being taken, filed various applications and, finally, the Member, Board of Revenue forwarded his application to the respondent for disposal. The matter was taken up by the respondent on 20th July, 1970 when he recorded the petitioner's statement. The case was adjourned to 5th August, 1970 requiring the petitioner to produce copies of certain documents. The requisite documents were produced on 5th August, 1970. The case was, finally, filed on 22nd September, 1971. The petitioner was not informed of the order. He has filed the above‑titled Constitutional petition.

2. A report was called for. It is reported that .the reliance of the petitioner on entry No. 83 in the Dak Behi of Tehsil Office, Bfiakkar, dated 19th February, 1962, about filing of the application, for exercise of option to purchase the surrendered land was ambiguous. It is also stated that the area in the application is of village Behal, whereas the area in dispute is situated in village Jhangi Ram. However, facts relating to the disposal of the petitioner's application were mentioned in reply to para. 7 of the petition from which the relevant facts have already been noted in previous paragraph. A copy of the order finally passed on 22nd September, 1971, was not supplied to the petitioner on his application and it was stated that since that formed part .of office notes, copy cannot be supplied. This is vide order dated 21st August, 1971.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after inspection of the file he has been able to find out that a note was submitted by an Upper Division Clerk on 21st September, 1971 on which the G. A. I put down file' on 22nd September, 1971 and that this is the order determined the rights of the petitioner. Learned counsel for. the petitioner contends that this is obviously without lawful authority because rights of citizens cannot be determined to the secrecy of office on a note of a clerk just putting down 'file' and affixing signatures. Learned counsel further submitted that the remark in the report about the entry in the Dak Behi is not correct. Even now it has been certified that the petitioner's application was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Mianwali. He has produced his application on which the aforesaid certificate has been recorded. It is placed on record. He has also submitted that the remark about the application of the petitioner being for village Behal is a misconception. That was the place of his residence. The area in dispute is in village Jhangi Rams.

4. There is no doubt that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is quite correct. The application of the petitioner which had been forwarded by the Member, Board of Revenue was processed, in which statement of the petitioner was recorded and documents received. It required a decision by a competent authority. It could not be disposed of on a note of an Upper Division Clerk by putting down file' and affixing signature. The order dated 22nd September, 1971 impugned in the petition has not been supplied to the petitioner on ground that the same formed part of office notes. The proceedings have been concluded obviously without lawful authority and are of no legal effect. The respondent is directed to examine the rights of the petitioner after hearing him with reference to the Martial Law Regulation in accordance with law. As nobody has appeared to oppose this petition, there shall be no order as to costs.

M. Y. H. Petition accepted

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.