1994 PLP 112 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 30th March, 1993. Petitioner is aggrieved against order dated 19‑4‑1975 of the Chief Land Commissioner, Lahore rejecting his claim for the land measuring 80 Kanals situate in village Khanpur, Tehsil Shahpur, District Sargodha resumed under MLR 64.

2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this Constitutional petition are that late Nawab Allah Bakhsh was the owner of land in the aforementioned village and excess area was resumed which the petitioner claims under para. 19 of MLR 64 as a sitting tenant. This claim of petitioner was accepted by order dated 4‑7‑1961 but it appears that sale agreement of disputed land was not entered in his favour neither payment thereof was made. However, the mutation of disputed land was sanctioned in favour of petitioner against which appeal was filed by respondents and the same was rejected. Revision petition filed by them also met the same fate by order dated 21‑1‑1975 of the Land Commissioner. Thereafter they fled revision petition and same was also dismissed by order dated 19‑4‑1975 of the Chief Land Commissioner, Lahore holding as under:‑‑ "It has been ascertained from the respondent that no sale agreement has yet been executed by him and that he had paid no instalment towards the price of the land. I, therefore, consider that no such sale should now take place and that the land should stand resumed by the Land Commissioner for the purpose of its disposal in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 32 (4) of MLR

115. For this purpose the claims of all tenants of the land and/or of the village, should be considered afresh. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly."

3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that it is manifestly clear from the order dated 15‑4‑1969 that "law provides that in the case of default in the payment of any instalment they may be ousted from the land sold to them under the sale scheme, after giving an opportunity to show cause. But if the Land Commission Authorities refuse to accept the instalments, then it cannot be considered a default of the purchasers. In the present case, the Land Authorities had in fact refused to accept instalments from the appellants on the ground that a civil suit was pending. In view of this opportunity of making payment should now be given to them and they should deposit all the instalments due so far".

4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that aforementioned observations do not relate to the case of petitioner but these are general observations.

5. Whatever may be the case learned chief Land Commissioner by his impugned order dated 19‑4‑1975 has not examined the case in detail and he has not gone into different aspects of the case as to whether the petitioner was . responsible for the non‑payment of sale price of the disputed land. This being the case the finding of Chief Land Commissioner against petitioner as to the non‑payment is liable to be set aside being without lawful authority. For the reasons stated above the impugned order dated 19‑4‑1975 is declared having been passed without lawful authority and case is remanded to the Chief Land Commissioner, Lahore to decide it afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. In case there is no fault on the part of petitioner as to the payment of sale price, the sale of land will be kept in his favour otherwise Chief Land Commissioner would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order. There is no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1204/L Order accordingly.