1994 PLP 1319 (CLC)

Ch. Muhammad Nawaz Sulehri for Petitioner. Ghaus Muhammad Chaudhary for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th June, 1993. This Constitutional petition is directed against order dated 26-7‑1983 of A.S.C. ordering resumption of disputed land from the name of Maley Khan, original allottee and his legal heirs.

2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that Addl. Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot vide his order dated 16‑11‑1968 cancelled the disputed land from the name of Maley Khan under section 10 of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Before this cancellation, the heirs of allottee, Khuda Bakhsh and others sold the same in favour of Khushi Muhammad vide registered sale‑deed dated 27‑8‑1968 who in turn sold the same to the present petitioner and Mutation No. 87 was sanctioned in his name. Thereafter, respondents Nos. 6 to 12 filed Mukhbari application on which impugned order was passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner ordering resumption of land from the name of allottee Maley Khan and his legal heirs.

3. It may be stated at the very outset that there was one joint Mukhbari application filed by respondents Nos. 6 to 12 on which impugned order has been passed. Respondents Nos. 7 and 9 are represented by Mr. Ghaus Muhammad Chaudhary, Advocate while other private respondents‑co Mukhbars were represented by learned counsel who unfortunately has died. But it is not necessary to give them notice as Mukhbari application was joint and respondents Nos. 7 and 9 holding joint and individual interest are defending the writ petition. Both the learned counsel for petitioner and respondents Nos. 7 and 9 agreed that learned Chief Settlement Commissioner has passed the impugned order without giving any notice to the parties. In fact the land has been resumed by Memo No. 1567/83/446 dated 26‑7‑1983 addressed to A.C/Collector, Pasrur. According to learned counsel Chief Settlement Commissioner should have given a proper hearing before any order was passed. They have no objection if the case is remanded for fresh decision by a Notified Officer.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the record I am of the opinion that impugned memo/order dated 26‑7‑1983 has been passed without any notice or hearing the petitioner as well as respondents. As such writ petition is accepted, memo dated 26‑7‑1983 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the case remanded to Notified Officer for fresh decision after hearing the parties who will be at liberty to raise all the points available to them in accordance with law. There is no order as to costs. H.B.T/M‑1399/L. Order accordingly