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.
Before Tanzi-ur-Rehman and Syed Abdur Rehman, JJHAJI MUHAMMAD KHAN and others---- Petitioners
versus
DEPUTY LAND COMMISSIONER and others-Respondents
Constitutional Petition No. D-10 of 1987, decided on 19th March, 1987.
(a) Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115)--
----Para ----7--Constitution of 7--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Gift of land-- Cancellation of gift by Land Commission without issuance of notice to donees--Effect--Where no notice was proved to have been issued to donees before cancellation of gift in their favour, constitutional petition was admitted for regular hearing to determine the effect of non-issuance of notice.
(b) Land Reforms Regulation. 1972 (M.L.R. 115)--
---Para. 29--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Gift of land- Cancellation of gift without notice to donees--Effect--No order, held, could be passed under para. 29 of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, or earlier order modified unless person affected thereby had been an afforded an opportunity of being heard and to ignore same would involve violation of principles of natural justice--Issuance of notice to a person affected by an order would also be in the interest of justice as it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings--Cancellation of gift by Land Commission without issuing notice to donees affected by such cancellation was declared by High Court in constitutional jurisdiction, to be an order having been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Sardar Ashiq Muhammad Khan Mazari v. Federal Land Commission and others P L D 1977 Lah. 461 distinguished.
Aziz Begum v. Federal Land Commission 1982 C L C 1803 and Mehmood Qadri and others v. O.S.D. Federal Land commission and another 1984 C L C 2330 rel.
(c) Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 (M.L.R. 115)--
-Para -- 29--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 Constitutional exercise of--Gift of land cancelled by Land Commission jurisdiction, notice to donees--Effect--In exercise of constitutional without on High Court declared order of cancellation of gift passed jurisdiction, Commission without notice to donees to be of no legal effect In by La order to avoid further delay and at their request parties were directed to appear before Land commission on a specified date fixed, by High Court for adjudication on the question of validity of gift.
Ismail Memon for Petitioners.
Syed Sarfraz Ahmed, A.A.-G for Respondents on Pre-admission Notice.
Date of hearing: 19th March, 1987.
TANZIL-UR-REHMAN, J.--This petition seeks to challenge the order, dated 25-11-1986 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Deputy Land Commission) Tharparkar whereby he has held the gift as invalid made by the petitioner No. 1 in favour of petitioners Nos. 2 to 4, allegedly on 10-3-1973.
2. Mr. Muhammad Ismail Memon, inter alia, contended that no notice was issued to the donees of the gift by the respondent No. 1 and as such the order is bad in law. To ascertain the correct position we issued pre-admission notice to Mr. Syed Sarfraz Ahmed, learned A.A.-G. who was present in Court.
3. Mr. Syed Sarfraz Ahmed, learned A.A.----G. agrees with us that there appears to be no mention of the issuance of any notice to the donees or presence at the hearing of the donees. The order speaks of the presence of declarant only. We are, therefore, clear in our mind that no notice of the proceedings was issued to the donees.
4. We, therefore, admit the petition to regular hearing. By consent the mater is taken up for regular hearing today.
5. Mr. Syed Sarfraz Ahmed, learned A.A.-G. contends that no notice was necessary to the donees who are the two wives and one daughter. Reliance is placed by him on a case reported as Sardar Ashiq Muhammad Khan Mazari v. Federal Land Commission and others PLD 1977 Lah. 461. On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Ismail Memon, learned counsel for the petitioners placed his reliance on two cases reported as Aziz Begum v. Federal Land Commission 1982 C L C 1803 and Mehmood Qadri and others v. O.S.D., Federal Land Commission and another 1984 C L C 2330. The case cited by Mr. Syed Sarfraz Ahmed, learned A.A.-G. is distinguishable on the facts. The learned Judge, while observing that the said lady was outside Pakistan and no useful purpose would have been served even if a notice could have been issued to her held that the absence of the lady from this country in any manner did not affect her rights which were being adjudicated upon in the impugned proceedings. In the instant case the petitioners, 2 to 4 are residing at the place where the land is situated and it can in no circumstance be said that their rights have not been affected in proceedings before the learned respondent No. 1. Moreover, we are inclined to follow the above-said two D.B. judgments of our own High Court which are binding on us and are exactly on the point before us.
6. In this view of the matter, we hold that the notices to the donees were necessary as they will be ultimatedly affected by the order passed. In any case, paragraph 29 of the Martial Law Regulation 115 provides that no order shall be passed under this paragraph or B modifying the earlier order unless such person has been afforded an opportunity of being heard. It is a statutory requirement. To ignore the same will directly involve the violation of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, it is in the interest of justice as it will avoid multiplicity of proceedings. We, therefore, declare the impugned order as passed without lawful authority and remand the case to respondent No. 1 to hear the matter afresh.
7. Mr. Syed Sarfraz Ahmed, learned A.A.-G. requests that in order to avoid further delay, some date may be fixed in the matter for appearance of the petitioners before respondent No. 1. The request isl reasonable. By consent, the petitioners are directed to appear before C respondent No.l, on 21-4-1987. The date is notified through the counsel and there will be no necessity of issuing any notice by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner.
8. The petition as well as the miscellaneous application stand disposed of.
A.A./M-77/K Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer