1993 PLP 1345 (CLC)

Ch. Abdul Saleem for Petitioner. Mubashar Latif for added Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th November, 1992. Facts of the case out of which this Constitutional petition has arisen are that the petitioner who is alleged to be in possession of Plot No.422, Street No.6, Jhugi Bole Wali, Faisalabad for the last about 30 years, had constructed a house alongwith boundary wall over the said plot. This area was subsequently declared as Katchi Abadi and the petitioner was transferred five Marlas plot out of the plot referred to above in accordance with relevant scheme. However excess area of 245 sq. feet although was a part and parcel of the constructed house of the petitioner but this area was not transferred to him. The petitioner submitted various applications to the departmental authorities‑for transfer of the excess area but those applications were not disposed of and excess area was put to an open auction wherein the petitioner purchased the wane being highest bidder on 26th of June, 1975. First instalment was also paid by the petitioner: However, the auction appears to have not been‑confirmed. Some time thereafter it came to the notice of the petitioner that property in question i.e., excess area has been transferred to Nasir Ahmad by the Deputy Administrator (Residual Property) vide order dated 6‑12‑1979 without notice and without knowledge to the petitioner and without passing of a specific order of cancellation of the petitioner's auction and disposal of various applications filed by him. This order has been challenged in this Constitutional petition. Abdul Saleem, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mubashar Latif, Advocate for the added petitioner have argued that the impugned order passed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 is illegal, without lawful authority inasmuch as the same has been passed without giving them an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners; without disposal of their applications and without passing a specific order with regard to the auction in favour of the petitioner. None has appeared to oppose this petition. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and I find that the impugned order has been passed without hearing the petitioners; without disposing of the application filed by them and even without passing a specific order of cancellation of the auction in favour of the petitioner. Resultantly, the writ petition is accepted. Impugned orders are declared to be illegal, lawful authority and are set aside with the result that the case stands remanded to respondent No.2 who shall decide the matter afresh after giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard as well as other concerned parties within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. H.B.T./Z‑70/L Case remanded