Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 387JR of 1977, decided on 8th November, 1977.

‑‑‑‑ Ss. 10 & 11‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Cancel lation of land on allottee's statement‑Owners of land, held, entitled to be heard before an order adversely affecting their rights passed Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.

Sardar Nazar Hussain Dogar for Petitioners.

Nemo for. Respondents.

Date of hearing : 8th November, 1977.

Respondent No. 3 Ahmad Din, had a verified claim equivalent to 944 Produce Index Units. He was allotted some land in village. Baloo Nau, Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala equivalent to 535 P. I. Us. whereas the remaining claim is stated to have been transferred to village Qila Murad Bakhsh. Land measuring 536 kanals 13 murlas equivalent to 400 P. 1. Us. was allotted in his name there 3/4th of which he allegedly sold to Ramzan and Muhammad Ashraf and remaining 1/4th to Amir Din and Dost Muhammad vide mutation dated 21st May, 1965. Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Ramzan are then stated to have sold their share to Sohna and petitioners Nos. 10 to 13 vide registered sale deed dated 28th May, 1968. A mutation was also attested on 10th August, 1966.

2. On 29th July, 1976 the Assistant Commissioner acting on the basis of a report of the Inspection Team cancelled the land from the name of Ahmad Din allottee from village Qilla Murad Bakhsh on a statement made by him that the land there was never allotted to him and that he had got his claim settled in its entirety in village Baloo Nau. It is this order which is being impugned before this Court through the present writ petition.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel that as the petitioners had been shown as owners in the mutation and subsequent Jamabandi the Assistant Commissioner ought to have heard them before any order adverse to their interest was passed. He, however, is not in a position to state if the land in question had in fact been allotted doubly as alleged.

4. A perusal of the record does bear out the contention being raised. The petitioners, who are being shown to be owners, had a right to be heard before any order adversely affecting their rights could be passed. The impugned order is, therefore, declared to be without lawful authority and. of no legal effect. The Assistant Commissioner shall, however, hear the interested parties again and if it is shown that the land in question had in fact been doubly allotted, the petitioners shall be entitled to retain the property only under Law and on the pay ment of the value provided therefore. There will 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.