Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 187/R of 19798, heard on 5th February, 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 10 a 11‑‑Bona fide purchaser from allottee‑‑Allotment subsequently cancelled‑‑ Purchaser having died before cancellation of allotment, his legal representatives not brought on record‑‑Such legal representatives, in whose favour not only mutation of inheritance was sanctioned but effect to mutation having been given in Jamabandi, held, would be necessary party‑‑Legal heirs of deceased purchasers has been not brought on record would be deemed to have been condemned, unheard.

‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss.10 a 11‑‑Natural justice, principles of‑‑Violation of Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Non‑impleading of legal heirs of bona fide purchaser of land from allottee, in proceedings for cancellation thereof, held, would not only render such proceedings to be against law but also against principles of natural justice‑‑High Court in' constitutional jurisdiction could declare such order to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect‑‑Case remanded back to Notified Officer for fresh decision of proceedings under S.10/11 of Act XLVII of 1958 after impleading of deceased purchaser ‑‑[Natural justice, principles of].

A. W. Butt for petitioners.

Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Respondent No.l.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.

Date of hearing: 5th February, 1986.

Through this constitutional petition, Jumat Ali and two others, petitioners, want this Court to declare the order, dated 30‑12‑1976 of Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Gujranwala with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala, respondent No.l, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts leading up to this petition briefly are that Abdullah respondent No.2 was a claimant displaced person. He was allotted land measuring 411 Kanals 6 Marlas in Chak Ramdas Nau, 269 Kanals 12 Marlas in Mouza Bhupar and 90 Kanals 2 Marlas in village Dhingranwali, Tehsil Hafizabad. He sold some of the land to Saeed Ahmad respondent No.5. Maulvi Abdus Sattar father of the petitioners purchased land measuring 170 Kanals 13 Marlas situated in Chak Ram Das Nau from Saeed Ahmed respondent No.5, vide registered sale‑deeds, dated 4‑7‑1969, 22‑12‑1969, 7‑3‑1970 and 25‑3‑1970. On the death of Maulvi Abdul Satter, the mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners and was given effect in the Jamabandi. It so happened that Additional Settlement Commissioner/ Chief Settlement Commissioner respondent No.l initiated proceedings under section 10/11 of Displaced Persons (Lands) Settlement Act, 1958 and cancelled the allotment from the name of Abdullah respondent No.2, the original allottee, on ‑ the ground that the same was obtained on the basis of bogus claim. IL was also observed that Abdullah had died in 1949 whereas all the allotments in his favour were obtained by his General Attorney Abdul Ghafoor after his death and as such illegal, hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the petitioners who were bona fide purchaser for value have been condemned unheard. Conversely the learned counsel for the Settlement Department has supported the impugned order. It may be noted that private respondents have already been ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that the mutation of inheritance of the disputed land was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners on 21‑2‑1973; that Abdus Setter had died before September, 1972; that in the proceedings culminating in the impugned order the petitioners were, not impleaded as respondents; that instead of the petitioners their' deceased father Abdus Sattar was impleaded; that Abdus Satter was dead when the proceedings under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Lands) Settlement Act, 1958 were initiated; that in any case the legal representatives of Abdus Satter, i.e. the petitioners were not brought on record. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the petitioners in whose favour not only mutation of inheritance was sanctioned but also effect to the mutation was, given in the Jamabandi, were necessary party and that they have virtually been condemned unheard.

5. For what has been said above, the impugned order is not only against the law but also against the principle of the natural justice. The same is therefore, declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. The case is sent back to Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/ Notified Officer, Gujranwala for fresh decision of proceedings under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Lands) Settlement Act, 1958 in accordance with law and after giving the parties opportunity of being heard. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

A.A 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.