2009 PLP 1035 (YLR)

C.M. No.1603-2008 SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.--The reasons recorded in this application, make out sufficient cause for restoration of the main petition dismissed in default, moreso when the assertions are supported by an affidavit of learned counsel of this Court. This applications is allowed. Main petition is restored to it's original number. C.M. disposed of. Main Petition.

2. Petitioner, through filing the instant petition, has voiced her grievance against the order dated 14-5-1989, wherein through a detailed order the lease agreement dated 23-9-1990 was cancelled, statedly, for violation of the terms of lease agreement. Petitioners claim that land situated in Murree in Compartment No.28, was not leased to the petitioner. Admittedly, the order impugned was passed without providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard by the respondent.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case came up for hearing before Member Judicial-I, Rawalpindi and the same was adjourned without fixing any date. The case was then fixed for 30-9-1998 and the same was not taken up for hearing due to non-availability of the Presiding Officer. On the adjourned date (21-10-1998), son of the petitioner entered appearance before the learned Member Judicial, when the lessee was directed to appear in person. The case was adjourned to 10-2-1999. The lessee did not appear on the adjourned date, as no notice was issued to the petitioner. Learned counsel has contended that no notice, as directed in order dated 10-2-1999, was issued to the petitioner. The case was adjourned for 13-5-1999 and the petitioner had no intimation of the fixation of the case on 13-5-1999. The petitioner was proceeded against ex parte on 13-5-1999 and the impugned order was passed on 14-5-1999.

4. Learned Law Officer, on the other hand, has submitted that the order impugned, has been passed in accordance with law.' The petitioner has violated the terms of lease and a penal action was rightly invoked. He has submitted that ample opportunity was granted to the petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and record perused.

6. Order dated 10-2-1999 transpires that the notices were directed to be issued to the petitioner. There is nothing on file to reflect that notices were actually sent to the petitioner. The petitioner was unaware of the fixation of the date of hearing. Thus, the petitioner has been condemned unheard. The orders dated 13-5-1999 and 14-5-1999, being violative of the principles of natural justice, are declared to have been passed without lawful authority and with no legal effect and are set aside. The case is sent back to the Member Colonies, Board of Revenue, Punjab for decision afresh, after hearing both the parties. Since this matter is old and further delay will not serve any one's purpose in the instant lis, parties are directed to appear before the Member, Board of Revenue on 4-11-2008. No fresh notice will be issued to the petitioner, as this order has been dictated in her presence. The Member, Board of Revenue, may hear this matter at Lahore or on his visit to Rawalpindi, as he deems fit. He is directed to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of two months from today.

7. This writ petition is disposed of in above terms. M.H./A-28/L Case remanded.