1986 PLP 425 (MLD)

Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioners. Nemo for the Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th December, 1985. An intimation was sent to respondent No.2 for today but he has not turned up. Ex parte proceedings are taken against him.

2. There was a dispute about the property in question. It had been allotted to the present petitioners and they had been successful in retaining it uptil the Court of Additional Settlement Commissioner. But subsequently in a second Revision Petition brought by the respondent Iqbal Ahmad, the Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelled the petitioners' allotment and remanded the case with a direction that it may be decided afresh after hearing the parties. The petitioners grievance was that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in his impugned order, dated 7‑7‑1977 (Annexure 'G') did not give them any notice and transferred the property, in favour of the respondent behind their back.

3. A perusal of the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Annexure 'E') shows that the fresh allotment of the property had to be done but only after hearing the parties. Till then, the petitioners were a party before him. In his miscellaneous application, dated 26‑10‑1976 (Annexure 'F') while reminding the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, the respondent scored off the names of the petitioners and presumably for this reason, they were not given any notice in proceedings taken in pursuance thereof. As a sequel, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in the impugned order (Annexure 'G') did not issue them any notice, obviously as they were not cited as a party and allotted the property in favour of the respondent. By then they had no other remedy as the Evacuee Laws were repealed and, therefore, they brought the present writ.

4. The impugned order speaks for itself. For all intents and purposes it appears to have been passed without any notice to the petitioners. They had been a hotly contesting party erstwhile upto the Court of the Chief Settlement Commissioner on whose direction fresh allotment was being made. One of the requirements of the said order was to hear the parties before making any fresh allotment. Evidently this directive was not followed and everything was done without notice to the petitioners. The petitioners had their own entitlement in regard to which the observation had been made by the Settlement Commissioner in his order, dated 25‑6‑1964 (Annexure 'D'). Their claim could not be brushed aside especially when they were able to prove that they were the sons of a Government servant which factor under the relevant Scheme made them eligible to claim the property. For this manifest reason, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The Writ Petition is accepted ex parte and the impugned order is held to be void, against the interest of the petitioners. The case is remitted to the notified officer for re‑deciding it in accordance with the order .of remand, dated 25‑12‑1965 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Annexure 'E') Parties are left to bear their own costs. A.A. Petition allowed.