1989 PLP 131 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 131 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 131 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 131 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 131 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Hafizur Rahman for Petitioner.
- Farooq Bedar, Addl. A. G. for Respondent No. 1
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Natural justice, principles of‑‑Violation of‑‑Effect‑‑Authority before taking any action detrimental to any person, has to give an opportunity of being heard to that person and failure to do so would render action of Authority wholly void. The University of Dacca and another v. Zakir Ahmad PLD 1965 SC 90 ref.
Judgment & Decree
The University of Dacca and another v. Zakir Ahmad PLD 1965 SC 90 ref. Mirza Hafizur Rahman for Petitioner. Farooq Bedar, Addl. A. G. for Respondent No. 1 This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 assails the order dated 24th of March, 1980 passed by Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.
2. Briefly the facts giving rise to this petition are that Government land measuring 18 Kanals situate in Chak No. 157/NB, Tehsil and District Sargodha was put to auction on 28th of June 1961 in which the petitioner was the higher bidder. He was ordered to deposit the auction price of Rs. 4,860, in two instalments. The first instalment was deposited on 3rd of July, 1961. The remaining amount was not paid as according to the petitioner, the file of the auction had been lost by the authorities and the requisite permission was not granted. In these circumstances the Commissioner Sargodha on 13th of January, 1980 recommended to the Board of Revenue that the petitioner be permitted to deposit the balance price with the interest. This proposal was, however, not acceptable by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue who while rejecting it directed that the land be resumed immediately and Tawan be also imposed and recovered from the petitioner. This order as contained in memorandum, dated 241h of March, 1980 has been called in question in this petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing in support of this petition as also Mr. Farooq Bedar, Additional Advocate‑General. It is not denied that before passing the impugned order neither any notice nor opportunity of being heard was granted by the Member to the petitioner. It is well‑settled, before taking any action detrimental to any person, he has to give an opportunity of being heard and failure to do so renders the action wholly void. (The University of Dacca and another v. Zakir Ahmad (PLD 1965 SC 90 refers). This proposition has not been disputed by the Additional Advocate‑General.
4. For the foregoing reasons this petition is accepted. The impugned order of respondent No. 2 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The learned Member Board of Revenue shall now re-decide the matter in accordance with law after allowing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1075/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.