1983 PLP 2851 (CLC)

Shameem Abbass Bokhary for Petitioners. Ch. Muhammad Alta f for Respondents. Date of hearing : 25th. April, 1978. By this judgment I propose to dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 1532‑11/1977, 1533‑11/1977, 1534‑11/1977, 1535‑11/1977, 1536‑11/1977 and 1537‑11/1977.

2. The order impugned in these petitions was also impugned in Writ Petition Nos. 1025‑11/1977 and 1060‑11/1977. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by my judgment dated 29th of October, 1977. For ‑ the reasons recorded in that judgment, I declared the order to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect to the extent it affected the peti tioners' right in those writ petitions. Since both the sets of writ petitions proceed on identical facts, I need not reiterate the facts here and this judgment be read alongwith my judgment dated 29th of October, 1977 recorded in Writ Petition No. 1025/1977.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents frankly conceded that the case in two writ petitions, viz., Writ Petition Nos. 1533‑11/1977 and 1536‑RJ.I97? is covered, by the rule laid down in my judg ment dated 28th October, 1977. lie has no objection if these petitions are accepted and case remanded to the Settlement Commissioner in terms of my earlier order. However, he has raised some objections in the remain ing petitions. In Writ Petition No. 1531‑lk/1977, it was contended that the petitioner has no right to be heard as the sale had not been finally completed. He had entered into an agreement to sell only and therefore, cannot claim a right of hearing. I have gone through the agreement. Under the agreement, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.20,000 as a part of the sale consideration of Rs.80,

000. The sate was to be com pleted by the Ist of March, 1977. The petitioner, therefore, has some right in the property. Since a number of cases are being remanded, without expressing any final opinion on the proposition raised, I feel that it would advance cause of justice if he, too, is afforded an opportunity of hearing I alongwith other petitioners.

4. In Writ Petition No. lS34‑R/1977, the objection of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents is that only one of the petitioners, i.e., Muhammad Sharif petitioner No. 1 is the vendee of the disputed land. No sale had been made in favour of petitioners Nos. 2 and

3. The two petitioners, therefore, have no locus standi to question the legality of the order impugned.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners when confronted with this frankly conceded that pe titioners Nos. 2 and 3 have no case for a writ. The petition as regards Mst. Sharifan Bibi and Muhammad Sadiq petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 is, therefore, dismissed. The case of petitioner Muhammad Sharif is fully covered by my judgment dated 29th of October, 1977.

6. In Writ Petition No. 1535‑R/1977 objection raised is that the names of these petitioners were shown in the Fard Talbana filed by the Mukhbars and their names were also shown in the press citation. A similar objection was raised during the hearing of earlier two writ petitions. I have dealt with this objection in paragraph 5 of my judgment. Mr. Muhammad Ayyub a representative of the Settlement Commissioner who brought the record conceded that on facts the case is not distinguishable from the petitioners' case in Writ Petition No. 1060‑R/77. I had formed the view that the press citation, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be accepted as sufficient service as required by the relevant rules. The objection of the respondents, therefore, cannot be sustained.

7. The objection in Writ Petition No. 1537‑R/1977 is somewhat on the same lines as in Writ Petition No. 1535‑R/1977. In this petition, both the petitioners are vendees. Name of one of the petitioners i.e. Mr. Muhammad Sharif is included in the press citation and the Fard Talbana. However, Muhammad Ismail co‑petitioner was admittedly neither heard nor issued any notice. On the reasoning given in Writ Petition No. 1535 R/ 1977, the objection raised is overruled.

8. The result is that Writ Petition No. 1534‑R/1977 qua petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 is dismissed and all the petitions are otherwise accepted in terms of my order dated 29th October, 1977. These cases, too are re manded to the Settlement Commissioner for a decision afresh either by himself or by an officer notified in terms of subsection (2) of section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal Act), 1975 to deal with such cases with notice to the parties. I wish to make it clear that order of the Settlement Commissioner is quashed only to the extent it affects the right of the petitioner before me. There will be no order as to costs. M,Y, H, Order accordingly.