1986 PLP 676 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.‑‑The controversy in this case is in respect of Plot No.7 of respondent No.2 society which was first allotted to Muhammad Hashim on 8‑1‑1974 but it was cancelled by respondent No.2 on 1‑1‑1975 and allotted to respondent No.3 who took the lease of plot from K.D.A., on 14‑10‑1975 and, thereafter, sold the same to the petitioner on 14‑9‑1976. The respondent No.4 had filed a miscellaneous application before the Deputy Registrar of Co‑operative Housing Societies for the restoration of the plot in his name. But the Deputy Registrar of Co‑operative Housing Societies rejected that application. The respondent No.4 thereafter, filed a revision under section 64‑A of the Co‑operative Societies Act before the Registrar of Co‑operative Societies where respondent No.2 and the Deputy Registrar of Co‑operative Societies were impleaded as respondents but no notice of the same revision was either issued to the petitioner or the respondent No.3 who had been allotted the said plot of land by respondent No.2 And had also received a regular lease from the K . D. A. , had not been made a party although it was necessary to implead them as a party because they had issued the lease. It is clearly mentioned in paragraph No.20 of the order of revision passed by the Registrar that this plot had been allotted by the respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 and it is also mentioned therein that the K . D . A . , had executed a lease in favour of new allottee and it was also mentioned in para. 19 of the impugned order that the plot was transferred for a consideration of Rs.65,

000. It is surprising that in spite of noting of these facts in his order the Registrar of Co‑operative Societies Sind did not consider it necessary to issue notice of the revision application to either the petitioner or respondent No.3 or even the K.D.A., who were necessary parties because their rights were to be affected by any order which was to be passed in favour of the respondent No.4. Yet, the respondent No.l passed an order in favour of the respondent No.4 and quashed the orders of the Administrator of respondent No.2 and the Deputy Registrar of Co‑operative Societies, Karachi and directed them to take steps for cancellation of allotment of plot and lease deed of the new allottee and he further ordered that the allotment to the original allottee namely Muhammad Hashim, the respondent No.4 was valid. It is obvious from the order of respondent No.l, dated 14‑10‑1976 that he has committed breach of principles of natural justice by making an order against the petitioner and respondent No.3 without giving a show‑cause notice to them and it is further clear that a notice was also necessary to be issued to K . D . A . , which was not done. Consequently, it is hereby declared that the order, dated 14‑10‑1976 passed by respondent No.1 in Revision under section 64‑A of the Co‑operative Societies Act on the application of Muhammad Hashim, respondent No.4 was without lawful authority and the same is hereby set aside. It would be however, open to the respondent No. l to take fresh proceedings after giving notice to the petitioner and respondent No.3 and the K.D.A. We are not expressing any opinion in respect of nature of the proceedings before the Registrar, although Mr. Muhammad Ali Jan wanted to attack the same and submit that they were without jurisdiction. We did not want to prejudge the issue. Mr. Muhammad Ali Jan can advance the submissions before the respondent No.l if he issues any notice to the petitioner. With the above observation the. petition is allowed. H.B.T. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.