1983 PLP 765 (CLC)

Noor Khan 676 600‑0

4. Razi ul Hassan s/o 676/1 336‑7 Zakia Begum

3. Bhekewal

1. Mst. Afaq Zamani s/o 840 267‑K Nawab Mohd. Ismail

2. Maulvi Abdul Rashid s/o Alaf Khan 848 90/15

3. Qasirn s/o Kanp 849 111‑0

4. Mohd Asgbar Rao s/o Mohd.,Abdullah 885 176‑13

4. Chung Khurd Qasim. s/o Kanji 92/1 127‑11

5. Jia Musa

1. Maulvi Abdul Rashid son of Altaf Khan 87 8‑16

6. Ichhra 2. ‑do‑ 465 15‑6

7. Kot Begurn 1. ‑do‑ 53 153‑6

8. Mozang. 1. ‑do‑ 80 13‑0

9. Ker Khurd 1. ‑do‑ 74/1 84‑0

10. Sanda L Razi ul Hassan s/o Zakia Begurn 69 109/7

2. Abdul Haq s/o Falih Khan 76 74‑0 The above‑mentioned Khatas have been declared invalid, non‑entity and void ab initio. Necessary note to this effect has been given on every Khata. A high level inquiry is also being instituted. The C. S. C is rleased to order that they should not be implemented in Revenue Record. Copy to A. C. for similar action at his end The land involved should not be transferred."

3. Some of the petitioners cla7m to be allottees and most others as vendees from the allonees. Learned counsel appearing for them contended that the impugned order dated 3‑7‑1977 is totally illegal having been passed on direction of the Minister; in the secrecy of office without notice ; contrary to facts and record and after repeal of all the settlement laws since 1‑7‑1974 by Act XIV of 1975.

4. On the other hand, the learned Advocate‑General and Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad Advocate of the Settlement Department contended that the petitioners have no right to maintain the Constitutional petitions having committed fraud, forgeries ; there were no claims, no order of allotment nor could be made and that whole thing is bogus.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length, gone through the authorities cited by them and the record with their assistance.

6. In all the circumstances we ate convinced that the dicturn laid down by late Mr. Justice Shabab‑ud‑Din of the Supreme Court of Pakistan who later or, became its Chief Justice and which still holds the field is fully applicable to the facts of these cases. The noble Judge had held that "As argued by Mr. Sharif‑ud‑Din, the learned Advocate for the respondent, and indicated by the learned Judges of the High Court the above rule of justice" (hearing before judging) "is not obtained to proceedings before Courts but extends to all proceedings, by whosoever held, which may affect the person or property or other right of the parties concerned in the dispute. As a just decision in such controversies is possible only if the parties are given the opportunity of being heard, there can be as regards the right of hearing, no differ rice between proceedings which are in the nature of a judicial proceedings though administrative in form."

7. Undisputedly the petitioners were not issued any notice before 1hJ impugned order was passed. It deprives them of property. Whether they have any right therein or not is a question which can be determined by ascertain mint of facts, law applicable thereto, and as "just decision in sure controvercies is possible only if the parties are given the opportunity of being heard", the impugned order has to be held as unjust, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petitions are, therefore, accepted with costs. To be cases are remitted to the learned Member, Board of Revenue for entrustment to a notified officer to ascertain facts where parties can take all pleas on facts and law applicable and the officer shall pass fresh order/orders in accordance with law. In order to avoid delay, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Member, Board of Revenue on 8‑1‑1983 when he will direct them to appear before the notified officer the same day or on another date. The Crl. Org. call for no action in the circumstances. It is dismissed. The aforetitled petitions are thus disposed of. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.