Find a Lawyer

--- Audi alteram partem, plea of--Persons affected, being associated with inquiry and taking active part in proceedings, held, could not take plea of audi alteram partem.

---Art. 199--Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss. 10 & 11--Constitutional jurisdiction; exercise of Allotment of land- Cancellation of--Cancellation of land through proceedings in which predecessors-in-interest of minors were associated--Finding of such inquiry having not been challenged by predecessors in interest, held, could not be challenged otherwise--Legal representatives of person dead, at time of inquiry held, having been served through newspaper could not challenge such -inquiry even through minors at time after lapse of years through constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.

Muhammad Saleem Shaikh for Petitioner.

Syed Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 12th January, 1986.

Agricultural land measuring 56 Kanals 4 Marlas located in village Pandori Khurd, District Gujranwala was confirmed in the name of Shahab-ud-Din respondent on 26-6-1966 against his claim No. 1578, on the request and in the presence of an unnamed attorney. On the strength of a general power of attorney in favour of Ali Muhammad, said to have been executed by Shahab-ud-Din almost a year after the confirmation, on 20-5-1967, the entire land was sold by a sale-deed on the same day to Hidayat Ullah. With similar speed Hidayat Ullah sold 3/7th of the land to different persons, including an area of an Acre or less in which the 11 petitioners have a joint interest.

2. In 1969 in the course of routine checking it was found that Claim No. 1578 against which this property was transferred belonged to Sahiwal District and had never been transferred to Gujranwala District. A notice was thus given to Shahab-ud-Din. Shahab-ud-Din appeared and narrated a long story. Shahab-ud-Din was a temporary allottee in village Katcha Pacca of Tehsil Depalpur, then in Sahiwal District but now included in Okara District. The land in his possession could not be transferred to him because it was a evacuee trust property. On his request his claim alongwith claims of 25 of his relatives, was transferred to Bahawalnagar District where it was received on 5-3-1958, while some of the claims of his relatives were satisfied in Bahawalnagar ten of the claims including that of Shahab-ud-Din wre misplaced. Shahab-ud-Din kept going from pillar to post in search of his missing claim but to no avail until he got a notice from Gujranwala where they had unearthed his claim in village Pandori Khurd of Gujranwala District. It was observed tht Shahab-ud-Din's claim had fraudulently been used by some persons of Gujranwala and action was initiated under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act. After inquiry it was found that a fraud had been committed with regard to the claim of Shahab-ud-Din. The original allotment was cancelled and it was directed that a new Khata be opened in favour of Shahab-ud-Din and the land be transferred to Shahab-ud-Din afresh. It is against this order that legal representatives of Muhammad Zaman to whom an Acre of land was sold by Hidayat Ullah and legal representatives of his father Murad Ali, to whom a share of Muhammad Zaman's estate had devolved after Muhammad Zaman's death, have come to this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction. The mainstay of the petitioners is that the petitioners were not associated in the inquiry and that they have been condemned unheard.

3. It is an admitted fact that Hidayat Ullah who retained interest in land to the extent of 4/7th joined inquiry. He has not challenged the impugned orders. Similarly Nazir Ahmad, a brother of Muhamad Zaman who was transferred 1/7th of the property in dispute was associated with the inquiry. He too has not challenged the impugned orders. Zafar Iqbal, etc. three brothers, who were jointly transferred another 1/7th of the property were associated. They too have not challenged the impugned orders. As far as Muhammad Zaman is concerned he had died at the time, the inquiry was conducted, but it is admitted that four of his daughters (petitioners 8 to 11) were served through proclamation in a newspaper although they did not appear. In view of the obvious attempts to serve the four minor daughers of late Muhammad Zaman, it cannot be believed, as urged by the learned counsel, that no attempt was made to serve his reversioners who were none else, than his brothers, sisters and mother, who inherited from late Muhammad Zaman's estate through his father, particularly when Nazir Ahmad one of his brothers had actually joined the inquiry, but accepted its fate. The petitioners, therefore, -cannot set up a plea of audi alteram partem. What is more significant is the fact that the learned counsel has not uttered a word about the ill turn given to Shahab-ud-Din or any injustice done to the petitioners by the authorities. If the petitioners are not themselves among the perpetrators they may have a cause against their predecessors, but not against the authorities or against Shahab-ud-Din respondent.

4. n view of the above considerations I find no merit in the writ etition. It is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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