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. 852/11 of 1978, decided on 17th February, .1986.
‑‑‑S.2‑‑Scheme for Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties situated in Province of Punjab‑‑Deputy Administrator (Plots) rejecting B.S. Form of petitioner on ground that petitioner had not raised any construction on plot in his possession‑‑Petitioner was not joined in site inspection made by Settlement Authorities and not given any opportunity to show that construction was raised by him‑‑Petition was not heard at all by Settlement Authorities before rejection of his B.S. Form‑‑Petitioner, held, was condemned unheard and order of rejection of plot was passed in violation of rules of natural justice and, therefore, without lawful authority and of no legal effect‑‑Case remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law.
Shujaud Din Qureshi for Petitioner.
Kh. Shaukat Ali for the Settlement Department.
Date of hearing: 17th February, 1986.
Through these two writ petitions, Naseer Ahmad and Naeem Ahmad Khan petitioners, want this Court to declare the orders dated 7‑2‑1978 of Deputy Administrator Plots (Residual Properties) respondent No. 1, Lahore and dated 30‑4‑1978 of Administrator (Residual Properties Lahore, respondent No. 2, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. I propose to dispose of them through single judgment.
2. The dispute relates to the transfer of two plots measuring five Marlas each bearing Khasra No. 3299/Min Alfaisal Town, Lahore. The petitioners' case is that they ‑ being in occupation of the disputed plot had raised constructions on area exceeding 1/4th of the area of plots. They filed B.S. Form on 31‑10‑1977 for the transfer of plots to them under scheme known as "The management and disposal of available Urban Properties situated in the Province of Punjab". The Deputy Administrator Plots respondent No.l vide order dated 7‑2‑1978 rejected the forms on the ground that they had not raised any construction on the plots in their possession. Feeling aggrieved of this order the petitioners filed two revision petitions which were dismissed on 30‑4‑1978, hence this case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the petitioners were not given any opportunity to show that they had actually constructed area exceeding 1/4th of the area of the plots. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order.
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. I find that undisputedly the petitioners are occupying the two plots; that they had filed B.S. Forms for the transfer of the plots to them; that they were not joined in the site inspection made by Settlement Inspector and D.S.C.; that in their forms they had stated "Rehaishi makan tamir kar rakha hai" but they were not given any opportunity to show the construction raised by them and that they were not heard at all by the Settlement Authorities before the rejection of their B.S. Forms. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners have virtually been condemned unheard. The impugned order has thus been passed in violation of the rule of natural justice and is without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
5. For what has been said above, the two petitions are accepted and the matter is sent back to A.D.C.(G) Lahore for fresh decision of the forms submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law after giving the parties opportunity of being heard. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
M.Y.H./768/L Case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer