Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.147/R of 1978, decided on 18th February, 1986.

‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), SS‑10 & 11‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2(2)‑‑Allotment of land, cancellation of‑‑Principle of natural justice, violation of‑‑Resumption order in respect of land in dispute was passed by Settlement Authority without impleading bona fide transferees of same as party in Mukhbari application and without affording them opportunity of being heard‑‑Such bona fide transferees having been condemned unheard, High Court in exercise of constitutional 'jurisdiction declared order of Settlement Authority as illegal having been passed in manner opposed to rule of natural justice.

Karim Malik for Petitioners.

Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Respondents.

Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.

Through this constitutional petition, Din Muhammad and Muhammad petitioners want this Court to declare the order, dated 4‑12‑1977 of the Settlement Commissioner/ Chief Settlement Commissioner (L) Punjab, Lahore, respondent No.1 to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts leading upto this petition briefly are Muhammad Khan father of respondents Nos.2 to 4, was a claimant displaced person. His claim was verified by the Central Record Office for 27266 P.1. Units. He was allotted land equal to 4126 units in Chak No.12 UCC and 18 UCC. Tehsil Ferozewala. He sold this land to Abdul Haq respondent No.5 who alienated the land in Chak No.12. UCC to Major Hussain Shah respondent No.17, Muhammad petitioner No.2 and Muhammad Latif on 12‑12‑1968, 18‑1‑1968 and 219.67 respectively, Muhammad petitioner No.2 gifted half of land to Din Muhammad petitioner No.1 vide Mutation No.20, dated 18‑11‑1970. On the death of Muhammad Latif, his land was inherited by respondents Nos.18 to 25 vide Mutation 68, dated 22‑1‑1976. Land in village 13 UCC was further alienated to petitioners No.1 and respondents Nos.6 to 15 Muhammad petitioner No.2 gifted half of land to Din Muhammad petitioner No.1 vide Mutation No.15, dated 18‑10‑1970. On 12‑11‑1967 the claim of Muhammad Khan was sent to Central Record Office for re-verification. Notice was issued to Muhammad Khan, the original allottee. His son Hamid Khan appeared before Settlement Tehsildar, Ferozewala on 22‑2‑1971. The Settlement Tehsildar recorded the statement of Hameed Khan and sent his report to the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Sheikhupura on 13‑5‑1971 recommending action under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land) Settlement Act, 1958. In the meantime Abdul respondent No.5 and Muhammad petitioner No.2 moved application for the investigation into the affairs alleging that Fard Haqiat of Muhammad Khan had wrongly and collusively been cancelled without any order from the Central Record Office. The Inspection team also probed into the claim of‑Muhammad Khan allotment made in his favour in Chak Nos.12 UCC and 13 UCC. The report was sent to the Additional Settlement Commissioner. On 9‑8‑1971. Hameed Khan son of Muhammad Khan and others, moved application before the Additional Settlement Commissioner alleging that Abdul Haq respondent No.5 and others, after having stolen the original claim of Muhammad Khan, got allotted land in Chak Nos.12 UCC and 13 UCC fraudulently. They requested for action against them. The Settlement Commissioner consolidated all the proceeding relating to the claim of Muhammad Khan and allotment of land to him. Thereafter, the, Settlement Commissioner vide impugned order at 5‑12‑1977 resumed the land from transferees of Muhammad Khan on the ground that original allotment was obtained through fraud on duplicate Form No.683 and directed that out of the land so resumed land equal to 3719 P. I. Units be allotted against the units of Muhammad Khan since transferred to Sheikhupura and lying unsatisfied, hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Settlement Commissioner/ Chief Settlement Commissioner (Land) Punjab, Lahore respondent No.1 in arriving at a finding that Muhammad Khan claimant had died on 31‑12‑1964, had misread/non‑read, 'the material evidence on record and the petitioners were neither impleaded as a party in the Mukh'nari application filed by Hamid Khan and others, the sons of Muhammad Khan, nor they were afforded any opportunity of being heard before the passing of the impugned order effecting their rights adversely. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned order.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. Since I feel inclined to declare the impugned order to have been passed without lawful authority on a short legal ground, therefore. I need not enter into the dispute with regard to the date of the death of Muhammad Khan. I find that the petitioners were bona fide transferees of the disputed land, that mutations were also sanctioned in their favour that from the Mukhbari application, it is very much obvious that Hamid Khan and others, the petitioners therein were fully aware of the mutations in favour of the petitioners. Strangely enough they did not implead the petitioners as party to the application. The learned Settlement Commissioner also did not care to give notice to the petitioners transferees of the disputed land and as such they have virtually been condemned unheard. The impugned order is thus not illegal but also have been passed in a manner opposed to the rule of natural justice.

For what has been said above, the impugned order is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. The matter is sent back to the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Revenue) for fresh decision on the Mukhbari application of Hamid Khan and others, in accordance with law after giving the parties opportunity of being heard.

H . B . T . Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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