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. 88/R of 1979, heard on 6th May, 1985.
---Ss. 11 & 12--Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9--Land allotted to Jammu and Kashmir Refugees--Petitioner having been conferred proprietary rights over land, paid stipulated price--Condemned unheard in proceedings before Court below--Order of Settlement Authority cancelling allotment of such land, held, was of no legal effect and passed without legal authority--Showing his father's name differently in two other places by petitioner was not fatal to his case.
Allah Lok and 2 others v. Sardar Irshadul Hassan and 7 others P L D 1982 Lah. 831 rel.
Abdul Majeed Bhatti for Petitioner.
Ch. Azeem-ud-Din for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 3 and 13.
Respondents Nos. 4 to 12: Ex parte.
Date of hearing: 6th May, 1985.
Land measuring 69 Kanals and 13 Marlas was allotted to Hashim Khan, a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir. He went back. Thereafter, the petitioner got allotment of this land. Respondents Nos. 1 to 12 filed a Mukhbari, application against numerous persons, including the petitioner. A notice was issued in Tohfa, Newspaper of Gujranwala, against the respondents in the application but the name of the petitioner did not appear in the newspaper. However, ex parte proceedings were taken against him and the allotment from his name was cancelled by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala in exercise of powers under sections 11 and 12 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 vide order dated 29-11-1978. Hence, this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been condemned unheard. He also submitted that the petitioner has been conferred the proprietary rights and he has also paid the price amounting to Rs. 3,220. Lastly relying on Allah Lok and 2 others v. Sardar Irshadul Hassan and 7 others P L D 1982 Lah. 831 he contended that the Additional Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction in the matter.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 has vehemently contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief because he has shown himself in the petition as son of Hashim Din whereas in his Nikah Nama dated 15-7-1974 he has shown himself to be the son of Massar Din and so also in the plaint filed by him on 30-9-1983 vide Annexures R.4 and R.1 respectively.
4. The petitioner is admittedly a Jammu and Kashmir refugee and he has since obtained properietary rights. In proceedings under sections 10 and 11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, he was not even issued a notice and the substituted service through Tohfa, a daily newspaper of Gujranwala, did not mention his name. The case is also covered by the authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner P L D 1982 Lah. 831. Strenuous contentions of the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 that the petitioner is not entitled to relief because he has shown the name of his father differently in two other places, is not fatal in view of the fact narrated above that proprietary rights have been conferred on him, he was condemned unheard and the officer had no jurisdiction.
5. In view of above, the impugned order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 29-11-1978 being without lawful authority and of no legal effect is so declared. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.
H.B.T. Petition accepted