2010 PLP 1928 (YLR)
QASIM KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1928 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Mrs. Yasmin Abbasey and Abdul Rasheed Kalwar, JJ |
| Parties | QASIM KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1928 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 1928 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Mrs. Yasmin Abbasey and Abdul Rasheed Kalwar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1928 (YLR) (QASIM KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Allotment of land---Counsel for the petitioners had contended that irrespective of issue of grant of land to the petitioners, Executive District Officer (Revenue) while taking suo motu action cancelled allotment of disputed land in favour of petitioners without issuance of notice to them and providing opportunity of hearing---Counsel had further contended that except naming the petitioners in the notice, address of none of the petitioners had been shown therein; that statement made in the impugned order that notices were issued to produce documentary evidence to substantiate the claim of allotment of land on harap right, was a misstatement of fact---Assistant Advocate-General though had disputed with the fact that notices were not issued to the petitioners before cancelling their allotment, but the contents of impugned order and the cause title referred, confirmed the fact that when no addresses were available with the Executive District Officer, how notices were issued to them---Even otherwise Assistant Advocate-General, except denial, had not satisfactorily explained that how without addresses of the petitioners, notices were issued to them---Petitioners having not been afforded opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order, impugned order passed by Executive District Officer (Revenue) was set aside and case was remanded to be decided afresh after due notice to the petitioners and all concerned with an opportunity to them to place their case.
- Mukesh Kumar G. Karana for Petitioners.
- Imtiaz Ali Soomro Asstt. A.-G. along with Zahid Ali, Mukhtiarkar (Rev) Salephat for Respondents.
- It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that irrespective of issue of grant of land to petitioners. Executive District Officer (Revenue), Sukkur, while taking suo motu action cancelled allotment of disputed land in favour of petitioners without issuance of notice to them and providing opportunity of hearing. By referring cause title of impugned order, it is argued by learned counsel for petitioners that except naming the petitioner in it, addresses of none of the petitioners have been shown therein therefore, the statement made in the impugned order that notices were issued to respondents to produce documentary evidence to substantiate the claim of allotment of land on harap right is a misstatement of fact.
- Although learned Assistant Advocate General has disputed with the fact that notices were not issued to the petitioners before cancelling their allotment but the contents of impugned order and the cause title referred confirm the fact that when no addresses were available with the Executive District Officer, how notices were issued to them. Even otherwise learned Assistant Advocate General except denial has not satisfactorily explained that how without address of petitioners, notices were issued to them.
Judgment & Decree
MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as respondents Nos. 5 to 69 are formal parties and no notice is required to be served on them for the purpose of disposal of this petition; therefore, their names be deleted. Order accordingly. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that irrespective of issue of grant of land to petitioners. Executive District Officer (Revenue), Sukkur, while taking suo motu action cancelled allotment of disputed land in favour of petitioners without issuance of notice to them and providing opportunity of hearing. By referring cause title of impugned order, it is argued by learned counsel for petitioners that except naming the petitioner in it, addresses of none of the petitioners have been shown therein therefore, the statement made in the impugned order that notices were issued to respondents to produce documentary evidence to substantiate the claim of allotment of land on harap right is a misstatement of fact. Although learned Assistant Advocate General has disputed with the fact that notices were not issued to the petitioners before cancelling their allotment but the contents of impugned order and the cause title referred confirm the fact that when no addresses were available with the Executive District Officer, how notices were issued to them. Even otherwise learned Assistant Advocate General except denial has not satisfactorily explained that how without address of petitioners, notices were issued to them. In view of above facts, we are of the view that petitioners were not afforded opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order, hence impugned order dated 14-2-2007 passed by Executive District Officer (Revenue), Sukkur, is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to him to decide afresh after due notice to petitioners and all concerned with an opportunity to them to place their case. Petition stands disposed of along with the listed application. H.B.T./Q-2/K Case remanded.