P L D 1977 Lahore 352 (PLP)

KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The dispute in this case is about an area .of 145 kanals and 8 marlas of land situated in village Lalyani. Tehsil Kasur, District Lahore. Thus land was surrendered by a declarant/land-owner Mgt. Jamila Mumtaz under M. L. It. 115/1972. The learned Deputy Land Commissioner on 29-1-1914 allotted the said land to five persons, namely, Khair-ud-Din, Ismail, Mahandi, Ali Muhammad and Noor Din. Respon dents 2 to 7 filed appeals which were accepted by the learned Land Commissioner on 25-3-1914 on the ground that there was a general directive from the Punjab Land Commission to review all allotments of resumed land where the number of eligible tenants was large and only a few had been allotted land. He, therefore, remanded the case to the Deputy Land Commissioner for fresh decision in accordance with law and indicated that he should first take action to finalise the correct entries in the khasra girdawari and then review his impugned orders in the light of the latest instructions of the Land Commission. The petitioners filed a revision, but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Chief Land Commissioner on 26-6-1974. The petitioners have come up in writ petition against the aforesaid proceedings and orders to this Court.

2. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that his clients were not parties in appeals before the learned Land Commissioner nor were they even otherwise heard by him, and as such, the order passed by the learned Land Commissioner was a nullity in the eye of law and the mere fact that the same was confirmed in revision by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner. could not confer validity to that order. The contention has no force. Appeals under the M. L. R. 115 of 1972 are filed under paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972. These Rules read as follows :- Rule

10. Form of appeal.-(1) Every appeal shall be preferred in the form of a memorandum and shall be authenticated by the signature of the appellant or his duly authorised representative, recognised agent or counsel. (2) The memorandum shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the order appealed against and of all the documents on which reliance has been placed in the memorandum. (3) The memorandum shall set forth concisely and under distinct heads the grounds of objection to the order appealed against and shall not contain any narrative. All such grounds shall be numbered consecutively. Rule

11. Forum of appeal.--(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made under the provisions of the Regulation may file an appeal to- (a) the Deputy Land Commissioner, when the order has been made by an Assistant Land Commissioner, or a Sub-Assistant Land Commissioner ; (b) the Land Commissioner, when the order has been made by the Deputy Land Commissioner ; and (c) the Chief Land Commissioner when the order has been made by the Land Commissioner Provided that- (i) when any such order is modified or reversed on appeal by the Deputy Land Commissioner (the order made by the Land Commissioner) on further appeal to him shall be final ; and (ii) when an original order is confirmed on first appeal, a further appeal shall not lie. (2) All appeals shall be presented within twenty days from the date of the order appealed against," A perusal of these rules will show that there is no statutory requirement to hear a respondent in appeal, though on the principle of natural justice it can be said that before passing an order in appeal a person who is to be adversely affected should have been heard. The position in review and revision, however, is different. Reviews are undertaken under rule 12 of the Rules and proviso (e) to sub-rule (1) of rule 12 lays down that an order shall not be modified or reverse unless a reasonable notice has been given to the parties affected thereby to appear and be heard. The same is the position with regard to revision as contained in rule 13(2). Hearing of respondents in an appeal or of persons who are to be affected thereby, even though they may not be formal respondents is, therefore, based solely on the principles of natural justice so far as the present case is concerned. It was laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Atta Muhammad Qureshi v. The Settlement Commissioner Lahore Division, Lahore and 2 others P L D 1971 S C 61 that where right of hearing is claimed on the basis of a statute or statutory rules then if an order is passed without hearing the man likely to be affected, the order is a nullity and the mere fact that it was maintained in appeal or revision would not improve the situation. However, where the right of hearing is based or flows from the principles of natural justice then the hearing by the higher authorities, will cure the defect. Respectfully' following that law we would hold that since in the instant case the right of hearing was not based on any statutory provision, but on the principles of natural justice. the fact that the petitioners were heard in revision has removed the defect, if any, in that respect. Even otherwise no substantial A injustice has been done to the petitioners in revision. All that has been done is that the case has been remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law, where obviously the petitioners will have ample opportunities to establish.; their case on factual and legal plan after leading such evidence as they may: feel necessary in the context. For the aforesaid reasons we find no justification to declare the orders impugned in this case as to be without lawful authority.

3. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. S. Q. Petition dismissed.