1986 PLP 570 (MLD)

Ahmed Yousuf Ali Rizvi for Respondent No.4. Date of hearing: 10th September, 1985. This Constitutional Petition is directed against the order, dated 28‑3‑1974 passed by respondent No.2 whereby ordering ejectment of the petitioner from the lands. The facts which give rise to this petition are that agricultural lands comprised of 1.32 Acres out of Survey No.57/2 and 1.12 acres out of Survey No.56/i of Deh Akuto as well as 47.00 Acres out of un-surveyed Survey No.181 of Deh Atbab Taluka Digri, District Tharparkar were the evacuee agricultural lands. The same were acquired for the purpose of Displaced Persons (Law Settlement) Act, 1958 and formed part of the compensation pool created under the provisions of the said Act. The aforesaid lands were settled on one Mst. Allahdi widow of Rehmat Ali in lieu of her claim. The said Mst. Allahdi had paid the settlement dues, a clearance certificate had been issued in her favour and her name was mutated in record of rights. The petitioner purchased the land in question from Mst. Allahdi under a registered sale‑deed dated 14‑5‑1972 for valuable consideration bona fide. The possession of the land in question was delivered to the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has been mutated in record of rights. It is averred in the petition that there exists enmity between respondents Nos. 2 and

4. The respondent No.4 had filed complaint against the respondent No.3 under sections 406 and 420, P.P.C., on 16‑5‑1973 respondent No.3 filed application before respondent No.2 purporting to be under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 alleging therein that respondent No.4 has obtained allotment of the land in question in the name of Mst. Allahdi through misrepresentation and fraud as Mst. Allahdi had never come to Pakistan and died in India and that respondent No.4 has forged the power of attorney in her name. The respondent No.2 issued notices to the petitioner and respondent No.4 who filed their written objection. The respondent No.3 did not lead evidence of himself nor examined the witnesses named by him in his application. The case was argued on the basis of the documents produced by respondent No.

4. The respondent No. 2 instead of pronouncing the order appointed one Irfan Ali Naib‑Tehsildar to go to Punjab and to make enquiries about the heirs of Mst. Allahdi. Irfan conducted enquiries and submitted report on the receipt of the said report the respondent served another notice on respondent No.4 calling upon him to inspect the report. No notice of the said report was however, given to the petitioner. The respondent No.2 by his order dated 28‑3‑1974 cancelled the allotment in the name of Mat. Allahdi on the ground that the same has been obtained by misrepresentation and fraud by respondent No.4 by fabricating false documents. The respondent No.2 has held that sale In favour of the petitioner as spurious and Benami transaction to defraud the Government and ordered that the land should revert to the evacuee pool. The respondent No.4 filed revision before the respondent No.l. Mr. Ahmed Saeed Qureshi has contended that the order dated 28‑3‑1974, is against law and offends the rules of natural justice. On the other hand Mr. Ahmed Yousuf Ali has supported the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent No.3 appeared in person and has submitted a statement that he has no interest in his complaint now and he does not want to press the same. He has no objection if the land is given to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 did not issue any notice to the petitioner after receipt of the report of Irfan Ali. I have perused the order of the respondent No.2. It is not clear from the order that any notice was issued to the petitioner after receipt of the‑report. The legal heirs of respondent No.4 filed certified copy of Judgment of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tharparkar in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 1981 filed by respondent No.4 against the State. The Judgment was announced on 14‑6‑1984 and the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge while allowing the appeal held that the prosecution failed to prove the allegation against the appellant. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the case be remanded to the notified officer. It is well‑settled law that any order in violation of the principles of natural justice is void ab initio. In the instant case it is averred in para. 12 of the petition that the respondent No.2 had passed the order without notice and without affording him any opportunity of being heard. This assertion had not been controverted by the official respondents, and in this view of the matter, prima facie, the order passed by the respondent No.2 appears to be void. As on this ground alone the petitioner has succeeded in establishing a prima facie case, I do not find any necessity of looking into the other grounds pleaded by the petitioner. In view of what has gone above, I accept this constitutional petition, set aside order of respondent No.2 and remand the application to Secretary (Evacuee Property), Board of Revenue, Sind Camp, Karachi Block No.79 Pakistan Secretariat, Karachi for disposal in accordance with law. H.B.T?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.