Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1794‑R of 1976, heard on 20th November,1985.

‑‑‑S.10‑‑Allotment of land, cancellation of‑‑Property in dispute was validly allotted to petitioner and legally was sold to other petitioners‑ Original allottee or subsequent purchasers neither were served any notice nor were provided any opportunity of hearing before cancellation of allotment by Settlement Authorities on application of respondent‑ Cancellation order passed by Settlement Authorities in respect of disputed property was set aside and case remanded for adjudication in accordance with law in circumstances.

Jan Muhammad and others v. Sher Muhammad and others P L D 1979 S C 985 and Javed Akhtar and others v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner Sangar, etc. 1980 C L C 1248 ref.

Malik Talib Hussain for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 20th November, 1985.

This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question order, dated 18‑10‑1976 passed by he learned Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Jhang.

2. The facts briefly stated are that petitioner No.7 Mst. Zohra Begum who is a refugee from Hyderabad Deccan (India) on migration to Pakistan applied for allotment of land in lieu of land held by her in India and Q.P.R. V No.35248 was issued in her favour. Against this issue allotments were obtained in Mauza Sabbarr, Bhagat Ram Jess, Sultan of District Jhang. Out of the land allotted to her in village Bhagat Ram Jess, she sold 172 Kanals and 17 Marlas to petitioners Nos. 1 and 5 through registered sale‑deed, dated 11‑12‑1975. Similarly out of her allotment in village Sabbarr, she sold 106 Kanals of land to petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 again through registered sale‑deed, dated 11‑12‑1975. Mutations pertaining to the aforementioned sales bearing Nos. 173 and 298 respectively were sanctioned on 15‑6‑1976. The said petitioner also effected an oral sale of 257 Kanals and 17 Marlas out of the land in village Mal Sultan, mutation regarding which bearing No.276 was also sanctioned on 15‑6‑1976.

3. Met. Ghoghari, respondent No.2 made an application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, for cancellation of the allotment of the aforementioned land. In this application petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 were not made party. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Jhang, vide his order, dated 18‑10‑1976, cancelled the allotment of petitioner No.7 which has, inter alia, affected the aforementioned petitioners Nos. 1 to 6.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that neither petitioners. Nos. 1 to 6 were made party by respondent No.2 in his application nor the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner gave them any notice or opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. It is said that the sale transactions in favour of the petitioners aforementioned had been reflected in the relevant record of, the Department before passing of the impugned order.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that petitioner No.7 was also not given any opportunity of hearing and her general‑attorney who is said to have appeared before the Additional Settlement Commissioner was an unauthorised person as his power‑of- attorney has been cancelled long before the passing of the impugned order.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the above position the impugned order is not sustainable. He has placed reliance on Jan Muhammad and others v. Sher Muhammad and others and Jan Muhammad and others v. Naseeb Ullah and others reported as P L D 1979 S C 985 and Javed Akhtar and others v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sangar, etc. reported as 1980 C L C 1248.

7. No one has appeared for the respondents to contest this petition despite the listing of the case yesterday and today. The respondents have, therefore, been proceeded against ex parte.

8. Having given consideration to the controversy involved I find that there is force in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners especially when these have not been rebutted from the side of the respondents.

9. In view of the foregoing position, allowing this petition I set aside the order of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Jhang, dated 18‑10‑1976 and remand the case back to the competent officer for adjudication afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties viz. the petitioners and respondent No.2.

H . B . T . Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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