P L D 1994 Lahore 296 (PLP)
GHULAM FATIMA and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1994 Lahore 296 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑‑S. 24‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Proprietary rights conferred as tenant were cancelled because of certain irregularities in his allotment ‑‑‑Alienees from original allottee were neither served nor ,heard before order of cancellation was passed ‑‑‑Alienees were, thus, condemned unheard and were not afforded a reasonable chance of defence for protecting their rights in land‑‑‑Order of cancellation of allotment violated rules of natural justice that no' person should be condemned unheard‑‑‑Order in question, on that score lone was liable to be struck down as invalid‑‑‑Board of Revenue was directed to afford adequate hearing to alienees from the original allottee in the matter of their rights in the land in question, before passing final order touching the entitlement of original allottee to the allotment of State land and conferment of proprietary right therein.‑‑‑Natural justice, principles of. |
| Bench Members | Gul Zarin Kiani, J. |
| Parties | GHULAM FATIMA and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1994 Lahore 296 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1994 Lahore 296 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑‑S. 24‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Proprietary rights conferred as tenant were cancelled because of certain irregularities in his allotment ‑‑‑Alienees from original allottee were neither served nor ,heard before order of cancellation was passed ‑‑‑Alienees were, thus, condemned unheard and were not afforded a reasonable chance of defence for protecting their rights in land‑‑‑Order of cancellation of allotment violated rules of natural justice that no' person should be condemned unheard‑‑‑Order in question, on that score lone was liable to be struck down as invalid‑‑‑Board of Revenue was directed to afford adequate hearing to alienees from the original allottee in the matter of their rights in the land in question, before passing final order touching the entitlement of original allottee to the allotment of State land and conferment of proprietary right therein.‑‑‑Natural justice, principles of. bench comprising: Gul Zarin Kiani, J..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1994 Lahore 296 (PLP) (GHULAM FATIMA and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ras Tariq Chaudhry for Petitioners.
- Rana Muhammad Arif, Asstt. A.‑G. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing; 12th February, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) (V of 1912)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 24‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Proprietary rights conferred as tenant were cancelled because of certain irregularities in his allotment ‑‑‑Alienees from original allottee were neither served nor ,heard before order of cancellation was passed ‑‑‑Alienees were, thus, condemned unheard and were not afforded a reasonable chance of defence for protecting their rights in land‑‑‑Order of cancellation of allotment violated rules of natural justice that no' person should be condemned unheard‑‑‑Order in question, on that score lone was liable to be struck down as invalid‑‑‑Board of Revenue was directed to afford adequate hearing to alienees from the original allottee in the matter of their rights in the land in question, before passing final order touching the entitlement of original allottee to the allotment of State land and conferment of proprietary right therein.‑‑‑[Natural justice, principles of].
Judgment & Decree
Chiragh was initially allottee of State land under Grow More Food Scheme. He applied for allotment of alternate land. A piece of 100 Kanals of land in Chak No. 184/ B, Tehsil Toba Tek Singh was allotted to him. Upon fulfilment of terms of allotment, proprietary rights in the allotted land were conferred upon him. Presumably, a conveyance‑deed was also issued. Thereafter, Chiragh sold the proprietary interests in the land to Najabat Khan vide registered sale‑deed. In turn, Najabat Khan gifted the land to his son Noor Ahafad Khan and daughters namely Mst. Ghulam Fatima and Mst. Sultan Bibi. Noor Ahmad Kh further transferred his interests in the land to his sons. Mst. Sultan Bibi gave her land to her daughter Mst. Zahida Parveen. It is asserted that subsequent alienations of the land in dispute were implemented in Revenue Records. On 28‑8‑1983, learned Member, Board of Revenue rescinded the allotment in favour of Chiragh and cancelled the conveyance‑deed in his favour. It was found that; there were certain irregularities in his allotment and conferment of proprietary rights to him. Chiragh was proceeded against ex parte. Alienees from him were neither associated. in the proceedings nor were they heard by the learned Member, Board of Revenue. Aggrieved of the decision, a petition in extraordinary jurisdiction, was filed by them. It was admitted to hearing on 30‑1‑1994. Admittedly, alienees from the original allottee were not heard by learned Member, Board i 4 Revenue. Reason for it was not forthcoming on present record. Effect of it was that they were condemned unheard and were not afforded a reasonable chance of defence for protecting their rights in the land. The case against them went unheard. To their extent, the impugned order violated the rule of natural justice that no person shall be condemned unheard. On this score alone impugned order was liable to be struck down as invalid. Clear result of it would be that learned Member, Board of Revenue shall afford adequate hearing to the petitioners in the matter of their rights in the land in dispute before passing a final order touching the entitlement of Chiragh to the allotment of State land and conferment of proprietary rights in it. For the aforesaid purpose, petitioners shall appear before the learned Member, Board of Revenue on 19‑3‑1994. In result, writ petition is allowed; impugned order of learned Member, Board of Revenue, dated 28‑8‑1993 is set aside and declared to have been made without lawful authority with a direction for fresh hearing of the matter after allowing an, opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In the circumstances of the case; parties shall bear their own (costs in this Court. AA./G‑197/L Case remanded