1991 PLP 2089 (CLC)

A.R. Shaukat and Shahzad Shaukat for Respondent No.2. Nemo for Respondent No.3 (Ex parte). Date of hearing: 15th July, 1991. In this Constitutional petition order dated 4‑7‑1978 passed by the Settlement Commissioner (Land) with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner has been called in question.

2. The facts giving rise to this Constitutional petition shortly stated are that Bashir Ahmad son of Ibrahim was allotted land measuring 339 Kanals 14 Marlas at Khata No.52, Register RL‑II of village Manjpur, Tehsil and District Gujranwala on 28‑10‑1964. He was also allotted land in village Nangal Duna Singh and village Sangowali in order to satisfy his claim. On 10‑7‑1965 Bashir Ahmad the allottee sold land measuring 68 Kanals 16 Marlas to petitioner No.3 through registred sale‑deed and subsequently on 5‑5‑1967 he further sold land measuring 271 Kanals 18 Marlas to petitioners Nos.l and 2 through registered sale‑deed from land measuring 339 Kanals 14 Marlas from village Manjpur.

3. Respondent No.4 who was subsequently impleaded as respondent No.4 in the writ petition alongwith others filed an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, alleging that the allottee Bashir Ahmad had been allotted land in excess of his entitlement. The Settlement Authority found that Bashir Ahmad had obtained allotment of land in excess of his entitlement, therefore, the land allotted to him in village Manjpur at Khata No.52 of Register RL‑II and in village Nangal Duna Singh was cancelled having been found to be in excess of his entitlement. The petitioners who had purchased the land through the above‑mentioned two sale‑deeds were not impleaded as party in those proceedings, therefore, they have been condemned unheard. They have challenged the order regarding cancellation of land of the allottee in village Manjupr at Khata No.52 of RL‑II as they have purchased land allotted to the allottee in the said village against the said Khata long before the proceedings were initiated under section 10/11 of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents frankly conceded that the petitioners had a right of hearing before any order was passed adversely affecting their rights as they having purchased the land prior to the fling of application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, had acquired valuable right in the land. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that if the impugned order to the extent of cancellation of land from the name of allottee in village Manjpur is set aside and the case remanded to that extent they have no objection.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners having purchased the land before the application under section 10/11 of the Act, was moved, therefore, they being bona fide purchasers without notice cannot be deprived of their rights of ownership in the land.

6. The petitioners may raise all objections against the maintainability or otherwise of application under section 10/11 of the Act or right to retain land on payment of price or otherwise before the Notified Officer to whom the case is being remanded. This writ petition is liable to be accepted on the sole ground that the petitioners were condemned unheard. It is partly accepted. The impugned order dated 4‑7‑1978 passed by the Settlement Commissioner (L) so far as it relates to cancellation of land allotted to Bashir Ahmad in village Manjpur, Tehsil and District Gujranwala at Khata No.52 of RL‑II is hereby declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member, Board bf Revenue (Settlement) shall entrust the case to a Notified Officer who shall decide the case afresh regarding allotment of land in favour of Abdul Ghafoor in village Manjpur at Khata No.52 of RL‑II afresh after hearing the petitioners and any other person likely to be affected in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./F‑273/L Petition accepted.