Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Writ Petition No. 960‑R of 1978, heard on 12th 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‑ Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Bona fide purchasers for value of land in dispute were condemned unheard before illegal order adversely affecting their interests was passed by Settlement Authority‑‑Non speaking order of Settlement Authority passed without applying conscious mind was declared illegal by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.
Faqir Muhammad Abid for Petitioners
Muhammad Rafiq Khan and Abdul Aziz Qureshi for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 12th February, 1986.
Through this Constitutional petition Subhan Khan and 6 others, the petitioners, want this Court to declare the order, dated 18‑12‑1976 of Extra Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Chunian, respondent No.2 and order, dated 8‑8‑1978 of D.C./Collector, Kasur, respondent No.l, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading up to this petition (as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners), briefly, are that land measuring 150 Kanals and 5 Marlas situated in village Rai Singh Wala, Tehsil Chunian was originally allotted to Kamal Zaheer Farooqi, respondent No.4, predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents No. 4 to 6. After having been cancelled from their names, it was treated as Central Government Property. Out of this land 102 Kanals and 5 Marlas was allotted to Chao Khan, respondent No.3 and 48 Kanals of land was allotted to Rehmat, respondent No.7. Subhan Khan petitioner No.l purchased this land from them and mutations were sanctioned and implemented in the Jamabandi. Subhan Khan petitioner then sold away Khasra Nos. 214, 228, 238 and 239 to Khairati, predecessor‑in‑interest of petitioners No. 2 to 7 vide Mutation No. 159 attested on 22‑9‑1972. It so happened that Extra Assistant Commissioner (R), respondent No.2, cancelled the allotment from the name of Chao Khan respondent No.3 at Khata Nos. 85 and 87 vide his order, dated 18‑12‑1976. The petitioners then filed two separate appeals before the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, respondent No.l, who called for report after thorough examination of relevant record. He ultimately rejected the appeals on 8‑8‑1978 restoring the land to Rauf Tahir, respondent No.8, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that although the petitioners were, extra, fide purchasers for value yet they have been condemned unheard and that the learned D.C./ Collector has not passed a legal order. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned orders.
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. 1 find that the disputed land was lawfully allotted to Chao Khan and Rehmat, respondents Nos. 3 and 7; that Subhan Khan and others, the petitioners, are the bona fide purchasers for value of the disputed land and that they were not heard before the impugned order adversely affecting their interests, was passed by the E.A.C. Furthermore, the order passed by the D.C./Collector in the appeals filed by petitioner No.l, cannot be termed as a legal judgment. The entire order of the learned Appellate Court reads as follows:‑
< --[if gte vml 1]>
It is thus very much obvious that the learned D.C./Collector, respondent No.1 has not applied his independent mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and has not given his own reasons in support of his decision.
5. For what has been said above, the impugned order is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and the case is remanded to Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Kasur 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 . Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer