1984 PLP 361 (MLD)
GULAB DIN and 4 others — Petitioners Versus IBRAHIM ALI KHAN and 12 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 361 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam, J |
| Parties | GULAB DIN and 4 others — Petitioners Versus IBRAHIM ALI KHAN and 12 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 361 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 361 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 361 (MLD) (GULAB DIN and 4 others — Petitioners Versus IBRAHIM ALI KHAN and 12 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Abdullah for Petitioners.
- Sh.Abdul Aziz for Respondents Nos.1 to 3.
- Muhammad Anwar Bhinder for Respondent No.4.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.5 to 13.
- Date of hearing: 19th June, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.199--Principles of natural justice--Maxim audi alteram partem (No one shall be condemned unheard)--Petitioners not served with a notice nor impleaded in proceedings affecting their rights--Held, it was against law and rules of natural justice that a person was deprived of his life or property without being afforded an opportunity of hearing Such order declared without lawful authority.--[Maxim].
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Abdullah for Petitioners. Sh.Abdul Aziz for Respondents Nos.1 to
3. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder for Respondent No.4. Nemo for Respondents Nos.5 to
13. Date of hearing: 19th June, 1984. This order will dispose of Writ Petitions No.1095/R/77, 1587/R/1977 and Writ Petition No.442/R/80 as these challenge the same order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner/ Chief Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala, dated 25-4-1977.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of these petitions are that the petitioners claim to be bona fide purchasers for value from one Meharban a displaced person from East Punjab (India) to whom allotment was made in various villages of Gujranwala: The allotment has been cancelled vide the impugned order.
3. The contention of the petitioners is that they have not been served with a notice or were not impleaded in the proceedings in which their rights have been affected. Learned counsel appearing on their, behalf have submitted that it is against law and rules of natural justice that somebody may be deprived of his life or property without being afforded an opportunity of hearing. This is, of course, the established law. In view of the above, the impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The matter is remitted to the learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner for entrustment to a competent officer for fresh decision in accordance with law after notice to the parties concerned. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs. M. B. A. Case remanded.