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 Petitions Nos. 862‑R, 911/R and 1134/11 of 1979, decided on 14th May, 1983.
‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Evacuee and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 2‑‑Mukhbari application‑‑Cancellation of allotment‑‑Land allotted to petitioners in lieu of their claims was sold to other persons (vendees) by means of different transactions‑‑Mukhbari application was filed against petitioners and application was moved on behalf of informers to implead vendees as a party but Settlement Authority, without passing order on said application and without hearing vendees proceeded to cancel allotment‑‑Order of cancellation, held, were violative of principles of natural justice and nullity in eye of law‑‑Order 'set aside and case remanded to notified officer to dispose of Mukhbar: application afresh in accordance with law after hearing all concerned partiea.
Ch. Noor Elahi for Petitioners.
Abdul Aziz for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4
Date of hearing: 14th May, 1983.
This order shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 862/R‑79, 911/R‑79 and 1134/R‑79, as common questions of law and facts have been raised therein. It shall, however, remain on 'the file of Writ Petition No. 862/R of 1979.
2. Briefly put, the facts which led to this litigation are, that the land in dispute, was allotted to Kanwar‑Akbar Ali Khan and others in lieu of their claims. By means of four different transaction, they disposed of this land in favour of Qudrat Ullah and 8 others, in the years 1971 and 1973. On Mukhbari application filed by Abdul Jabbar and others, the learned Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated 19‑8‑1979 cancelled the allotment of Kanwar Akbar Ali Khan and others, to the tune of 3352 P.L. Units. The letters have brought Writ Petition No. 862/ R‑of 1979, to challenge the validity of this order, On a variety of grounds.
3. The case of the vendees is that before the cancellation of the allotment of the vendors they were neither impleaded as party nor were they served nor heard. It is thus, asserted that as the allottees had no interest in the property, the vendees alone being the necessary party, were entitled to be heard and protect their rights. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 911/R‑of 1979 has been instituted by them to assail the impugned order.
4. It appears that in implementation of the order, dated 19‑8‑1979, the possession of the land in dispute was sought to be delivered to the informers. The orders, dated 1‑9‑1979 and 2‑9‑1979 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Magistrate Section 30 Sahiwal respectively, in this behalf, have been called in question through Writ Petition No. 1134/R‑of 1979, by Kanwar Akbar Ali Khan and others.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. There is an application, dated 27‑5‑1977 on the file, moved on behalf of the informants, to implead the vendees as a party. This application came up for hearing before the learned Settlement Commissioner on 30th May 1977 but no order to bring the vendees on the record appears to have been made. As they were not impleaded as a party, there was no question of serving them with any notice or to hear them. The learned counsel for the informers, could not lay hand on any record to show that they were served or heard. It being so, the impugned order which obviously, is directed against them, being violative of the principle of natural justice is a nullity in the eye of law. For this reason alone, the said order is liable to be set aside. It is to be seen that the impugned order is unitary in character and setting aside of the same on the vendees writ petition, would enure to the benefit of the allottees as well as.
4. For the foregoing reasons the impugned orders are set aside and the three writ petitions aforesaid accepted, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The case is remanded to the officer notified under section 2(2) of Act XIV of 1975 who shall dispose of the Mukhbari application afresh, in accordance with law, after hearing all the concerned parties. They shall be at liberty to raise any plea, against each other, within the ambit of law. The case shall be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months.
M. Y. H./K‑2/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