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.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 215 and 216 of 1975, decided on 25th October, 1980.
(On appeal from the judgments of the Lahore High Court, dated 7‑10‑1974 in Writ Petitions Nos. 23‑R of 1967 and 88‑R of 1967 respectively).
‑‑‑Art. 185('3) & 199‑‑Displaced Person (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Principles of natural justice‑‑Violation of‑‑Settlement authorities cancelling allotment of land obtained in excess of entitlement by misrepresentation and fraud‑‑Order challenged in Constitutional petition‑‑High Court setting aside cancellation order on ground that respondent‑allottees had not been heard before cancellation order was passed‑‑Order impugned by petitioner (subsequent allot tee)‑‑Leave granted to examine petitioner's complaint that after cancellation of allotment of respondents, disputed area was confirmed in his name and respondents did not intentionally join him as party to Constitutional petition and impugned judgment of High Court had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice so far as petitioner was concerned.‑‑[Natural justice, principles of].
A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 25th October, 1980.
The dispute in both these petitions concerns land allotted to the private respondents on 8‑3‑1963 under five Khatas of R.L. II of Village Panj‑Gireen, Tehsil and District Gujranwala on transfer of their excess P.I. Units from Village Leel of the same Tehsil and District. The Additional Settlement Commissioner Gujranwala, however, cancelled this allotment by the order, dated 29‑7‑1966 on a Mukhbari application by one Ghulam Muhammad and others on the ground that the respondents were guilty of obtaining the allotment in excess of their entitlement by misrepresentation and fraud by getting the entitlement calculated at 65 P.I. Units as against 28 P.I. Units per Acre. The respondents ultimately succeeded in challenge to the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner on a petition under Article 98 of 1956 Constitution on the ground that the respondents had not even been heard by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner before he passed the impugned order.
The petitioner, herein, now seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court on the ground that after the cancellation of the allotment of the respondents, the disputed area was confirmed in his name on 5‑8‑1968 and the respondents did not intentionally, join the petitioner as a party to the Constitutional petition and the judgment of the High Court has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice so far as the petitioner is concerned.
The complaint deserves examination, we therefore, grant special leave. Security Rs.2,000.
Since only a short question is involved in the disposal of the appeal, office to expedite its disposal.
The appeal shall be heard on the present record but the parties are at liberty to file additional documents, if any.
M.I. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer