1985 PLP 2642 (CLC)

The petitioner was allowed to purchase the disputed land by the learned Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement and Reh. Wing) vide letter dated 20-8-1980 (Annex 'K'). Later on vide Letter No. 115/8159-R (L), dated 9-2-1981, the learned Member, Board of Revnue (Settlement and Reh. Wing) Punjab, was pleaded to cancel his earlier order of sale. A copy of the letter/order has been placed on the file as Annexure 'N'. The petitioner has challenged this order.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner and as such the order is void.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents have contended that even if it is granted that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner, the Court is to see for itself whether any useful purpose can be served by passing an order of remand. The learned counsel submitted that there is enough material on record on the basis of which the petition can be decided even on merits. It is submitted that vide Notification No. 167-73/1567-R (L), dated 16-5-1973, the learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Punjab, issued directions that ".... in all the revenue estates situated within the Urban Limits of a Municipal Corporation, Municipal Committee, a Notified area Committee, Town Area Committee, Small Town Committee, a Sanitary Committee or a Cantonment, throughout the province of the Punjab, as building sites, for disposal under section 13 of the said Act."

4. The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the disputed land was within the Municipal Committee and as such is urban site, the allotment of the same by the learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner was without jurisdiction and if this order is withdrawn, it will revert to correct positition to which the learned Member, Board of Revenue has reverted. Learned counsel have referred to form submitted by the petitioner wherein he had sought the land under Settlement Scheme No. IX, which is regarding urban sites.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the disputed land does not fall in the urban site and is not within the Municipal limits. With regard to the form filed by the petitioner, learned counsel has submitted that later the petitioner submitted an application to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for allotment of the disputed land on payment, in which it is not mentioned that the land was an urban site. Learned counsel has stated that the form was submitted by the petitioner on the basis of some knowledge which was not correct.

6. Because of counter arguments, a situation has arisen where the factual position is to be ascertained as to whether the disputed land falls within the domain of Urban Sites as declared by the Chief Settlement Commissioner or not. This fact cannot be decided in the writ petition as it needs production of evidence and as such it is not possible to decide the petition on merits.

7. Reverting to the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allotment order passed in his favour was cancelled without hearing him, I feel that principle of audi alteram partem has not been complied with. In the circumstances, the order dated 9-2-198l of the learned M.B.R./Chief Settlement Comissioner is not maintainable and the same is set aside. The learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner shall hear the petitioner and pass fresh order. No order as to costs. H.B.T.????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Writ issued.