Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.1082/R of 1974, heard on 7th December, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss.10 & 11‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Allotment of land, cancellation of‑‑Order cancelling allotment of land by Authority without hearing allottee at time of making such order‑‑Order of cancellation of allotment passed by Authority without taking into account orders and instructions of Higher Authority, held, was without lawful authority being opposed to rule of natural justice.

A.R. Shukat for Petitioner.

Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 7th December, 1985.

Through this constitutional petition, Taj Din, petitioner wants this Court to declare orders, dated 25‑10‑1967, 5‑11‑1973 and 6‑5‑1974 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala (L) Gujranwala and Settlement Commissioner (Land) Lahore, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The dispute relates to Khasra Number 242/1 measuring 4 Kanals Rehmat father of Taj Din petitioner was a claimant Displaced Person. He filed claim which was verified for 885 P.I. Units. He was allotted and confirmed land in village Mussanda, District Gujranwala on 13‑10‑1953. Thereafter, Khasra Nos.251, 252 and 242 were taken away from his Khata and allotted to Din Muhammad father of Azmat Shah respondent No.3, on 30‑10‑1961 by A.R.C.(L). The father of the petitioner filed appeal before D . R . C . (L) which was accepted on 8‑11‑1962 and Khasra numbers were restored to him. Thereafter, Din Muhammad filed review application on 16‑3‑1966 before Additional Settlement Commissioner respondent No.2 who vide his order, dated 10‑5‑1967 referred the matter to the Chief Settlement Commissioner recommending that the petitioner may be allowed to purchase land equal to 52 P. I. Units and the excess land may not be cancelled from his name which was answered as follows:‑---

"Returned in original to A.D.C. Gujranwala. He is requested to intimate as to whether 52 P.I. Units are in excess after giving 10% extra at the time of allotment or 10% has not been given at all. "

Thereafter, the Additional Settlement Commissioner vide his order, dated 25‑10‑1967 cancelled Khasra No.242/I measuring 4 Kanals from the name of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved of this order the petitioner filed revision before Settlement Commissioner (L) which was dismissed on 5‑11‑1973 as tire‑bared as well as failure to prove the death of Rehmat. The petitioner then filed application for the restoration of the revision which was also dismissed on 6‑5‑1974, hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the order, dated 5‑11‑1962 of the D.R.C. whereby the order of the A . R. C . dated 30‑10‑1961 was set aside and it was directed that if any area was to be taken out from the allotment of the petitioner it should be according to his choice and that the excess area if any may be sold to him, there was no justification to cancel the allotment of Khasra No.242/I from his name, that the petitioner was not heard at the time of passing order, dated 25‑10‑1967 and that the revision filed by him was dismissed without any legal and factual justification. Azmat Shah respondent No.3 has been ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. The learned counsel for the Settlement Department has supported the impugned order.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the order, dated 25‑10‑1967 was passed without hearing the petitioner. It appears that neither any notice was issued nor the same was served on him and that while passing order, dated 25‑10‑1967, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner/ Additional Settlement Commissioner respondent No.2 had not taken into account the order, dated 10‑5‑1967 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the answer to the reference made by him as detailed above. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the learned respondent No. 2 had no authority to cancel the disputed Khasra from the name of the petitioner. His order also being opposed to the rule of natural justice is without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

5. For what has been said above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs, the petition is allowed.

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.