1986 PLP 2307 (MLD)
ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2307 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Lone, J |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2307 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2307 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Lone, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2307 (MLD) (ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Bashir Khan for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 2(2)‑‑Permanent Transfer Deed, cancellation of‑‑Cancellation of P.T. D. without notice or opportunity of being heard to holder thereof, held, would not justify such cancellation‑‑Settlement Authority ordering such cancellation being not Notified Officer, under S.2(2) of Act XIV of 1975, jurisdiction to pass order of cancellation would be lacking in such Authority. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2 (2)‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Where order of Settlement Authority was passed without jurisdiction in matter and. P.T.D. was cancelled without serving and hearing P.T.D. holder, High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction would strike down such order.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2 (2)‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Where order of Settlement Authority was passed without jurisdiction in matter and. P.T.D. was cancelled without serving and hearing P.T.D. holder, High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction would strike down such order. Rana Muhammad Bashir Khan for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th October, 1985. The dispute between the parties relates to property bearing No. 128/129‑B, situate in Mohallah Islam Nagar, Sillanwali, District Sargodha. It was transferred to Allah Ditta petitioner as a residential house, against his form CH. P.T.D., dated 6‑12‑1967 (Annexure 'B') has also been issued in his name.
2. The grievance voiced by the petitioner through this writ petition is that on the basis of a miscellaneous application (Annexure 'D') filed by Muhammad Shabbir respondent who is inimical towards him, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner without holding any enquiry and associating the petitioner therewith, in pursuance of an office report, cancelled the petitioner's transfer on the ground that the property included a plot which did not form part of the residential house. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order in this behalf is, dated 24‑6‑1975. Subsequent to this ex parte order the house was put to auction and sold away in favour of respondent No. 2.
3. Notice by registered post was sent to respondent No. 2 but he is absent. He is, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the available record. His main argument is that the petitioner has been condemned unheard and that after the issue of the P. T. D. no jurisdiction vested in the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to proceed against the petitioner and cancel the P.T.D. particularly after the repeal of the evacuee law.
5. The submission of the (earned counsel appears to be well‑founded. The available record amply demonstrates that the petitioner was neither served nor heard. Further the Deputy Settlement Commissioner has not passed any detailed order embodying the reasons for cancellation of the P.T.D. and disposal of the property through auction. He merely endorsed the report of the Settlement Inspector. In any case, he was not a Notified Officer under section 2(2) of Act, XV of 1975 and thus had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. It, therefore, cannot be upheld.
6. This writ petition is, accepted and the impugned order declared to have been passed without lawful authority. As the respondent has not entered appearance to contest this writ petition, the parties are left to bear their own casts. A . A . Petition accepted.