Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.307‑R of 1978, heard on 5th 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‑‑Allotment of land, cancellation of‑‑Notice‑ Cancellation of allotment of land in favour of party, held, could not be effected without prior notice to previous allottee‑‑Absence of prior notice would render such cancellation against the rules of natural justice‑‑High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction would declare such cancellation as illegal and of no legal effect.

Muhammad Afzal Qureshi for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent No.1.

Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Respondent No.2.

Date of hearing: 5th February, 1986.

Through this constitutional petition, Qurban Ali and five others, petitioners, want this Court to declare the order, dated 17‑11‑1977 of Extra Assistant Officer/ Collector respondent No.2 to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The petitioners' case is that they are Jammu and Kashmir refugee. The disputed land was allotted to Muhammad Bibi predecessor of petitioners Nos. 3 to 6, Ramzan Bibi and Ghulam Rasool predecessor of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. On the death of Muhammad Bibi and Ghulam Rasool, the mutation of inheritance was not, sanctioned so the revenue record could not be changed. It so happened that on 17‑11‑1977, Extra Assistant Settlement Officer/ Collector, Sialkot, on the application of Fateh Muhammad respondent No.1 cancelled the allotment of the petitioners, hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that no notice was issued to them by Extra‑Assistant Settlement Commissioner before the cancellation of the allotment. The learned counsel for the Settlement Department has, however, supported the impugned order. It may be noted that Fateh Muhammad has 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 find that Fateh Muhammad had not impleaded the petitioners or their predecessor‑in‑interest in the application moved by him before respondent No.2; that the impugned order has been passed on wrong facts inasmuch as in the order it has been stated that Mst. Ramzan Bibi had died whereas she had not died and is still alive. Admittedly, Qurban petitioner No.1 is son of Ghulam Rasool, the original allottee but no notice was given to him by respondent No.2 before passing the impugned order affecting the interest of the petitioners adversely. So the petitioners have virtually been condemned unheard. That being the position, the impugned order being opposed to the rule of natural justice is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.

5. For what has been said above, the petition is accepted. The case is sent back to Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/notified Officer, Gujranwala for fresh decision in accordance with law after giving the parties opportunity of being heard. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

H.B.T.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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