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.
Constitutional Petitions Nos. 146 and 147 of 1981, decided on 18th January, 1987.
‑‑Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 2(2)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Allotment of land, cancellation of‑‑Principle of natural justice, violation of‑‑Petitioner being bona fide purchaser for value of evacuee land validly allotted to the vendor‑‑None of them made party nor heard in proceedings before Settlement Authority for cancellation of allotment of vendor/allottee‑‑Principle of natural justice having been violated, order for cancelling allotment passed by Settlement Authority was declared illegal and without jurisdiction by High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction
Maroof Ali Khan for Petitioner.
A.R. Kazi Addl. A.‑G. for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 18th January, 1987.
This order will govern the disposal of C.P. Nos. 146/81 and 147/81. The petitioners in the above cases had purchased Survey Nos.80 and 81 respectively in Deh Tangiani, Taluka Kotri, District Dadu, through registered sale deeds from the claimant Ahmed Khan who was transferred there lands on 23‑9‑1959 under the provision of Displaced Person (Land Settlement) Act 1958. The land was duly entered in the name of claimant on the basis of a clearance certificate issued by the Authorities concerned on 29‑6‑1974. After sale of these lands in favour of the petitioners their names were also entered in the' record of right on 7‑11‑1980 in place of the claimant. It appears that respondent No.2 filed a Misc: Application in August, 1981 before respondent No.l, praying for cancellation of the allotment of above land from the allotment of claimant on the ground that these lands which were allegedly allotted to one Ahmed Hussain were surrendered by him under MLR‑89 and thereafter it was purchased by respondent No.2 through the revenue authorities. The above contention was upheld by the respondent No.l who allowed the misc. application filed by respondent No.2 and cancelled the allotment of land in respect of the Survey Nos.80 and 81 by the impugned order dated 17‑8‑1981.
Mr. Maroof Ali Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold contention before me. It is firstly, contended that the land which was subject‑matter of the dispute before the respondent No.l being evacuee land having been allotted under a Khatoni dated 23‑9‑1959 could not be cancelled by respondent No.1 after the repeal of the evacuee laws in 1974 as neither any case was pending on the date of repeal of the evacuee laws nor it was a case which was remanded back by the High Court or Supreme Court. Alternatively, it is contended by the learned counsel that the order dated 17‑8‑1981 was an order wholly without jurisdiction as it was passed without impleading the petitioners who were the purchasers of the land in dispute through registered sale deed and their names duly appeared in the revenue record as owners of the land. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not without force. It appears from the Khatoni, dated 23‑9‑1959 which is a record and which is not disputed by anyone that the land was initially allotted to claimant Ahmed Khan and not to Ahmed Hassan as found by respondent No.l in his impugned order. It is also clear from the documents brought on record in the above cases that in the first instance the land was entered on the basis of a clearance certificate issued on 29th June, 1974 in the name of claimant Ahmed Khan and, thereafter, it was entered in the names of petitioners on 7‑11‑1980 on the basis of Registered Sales in their favour. In these circumstances, the two petitioners were necessary party before any order adverse to them could be passed by respondent No.l in respect of the above two survey numbers. Since the petitioners were neither made party nor heard in the case decided by respondent No.l the order passed by respondent No.l on 7‑8‑1981 on the application of respondent No.2 is an order which offended the principle of natural justice. I accordingly declare the order of respondent No.l dated 7‑8‑1981, as an order without jurisdiction. As the petitioners have succeeded on the above contention, I do not feel it necessary to decide the other contentions of the petitioner. There will be no order as to costs.
H . B . T . / H‑26 / K Petition allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer