1990 PLP 1236 (CLC)

This writ petition is directed against the impugned. order of the notified officer of the level of Settlement Commissioner (Land), Punjab. The order impugned is lengthy one running into 18 pages. Ch. Muhammad Rafq Khan, Advocate represents respondent No.2 informer who has been held not entitled to any benefit, therefore, I. do not think he has any locus standi in the matter. The dispute, thus, boils down to two persons, that is, petitioner as well as respondent No.l Muhammad Aslant who claims to be a vendee of the land from the petitioner's allotment in Chak No:21/GD district Okara. None has turned up on behalf of respondent No.l despite a specific order of this Court to the counsel to attend to the hearing of this case today.

2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has drawn the attention of this Court to para 23 of the impugned order which is operative part of the decision and on a perusal thereof it is to be found that the notified officer has held that it could not be ascertained correctly as to how many units out of the claim of Nek Muhammad, that is, petitioner have been settled in village Ganga Singh. It was held by the notified officer. "The figure as given in para No.13 above suggests that some of his units are still pending satisfaction. Similarly in his statement dated 18‑9‑1967 before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sahiwal Nek Muhammad had contended that a part of his claim was still lying unsatisfied. In these circumstances I would order that allotment to the extent of 3639 P.I. Units as detailed below should be retained and excluded from the cancellation."

3. The clear stand of learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that he had exhausted all his entitlement and nothing was available after 1961 and on the contrary it is being claimed that the allotment in Chak No.21/GD after his full entitlement stood exhausted against the allotment. It, therefore, appears A strange that despite the stand of the petitioner to this effect, the notified officer has held the petitioner entitled to satisfaction of further pending units. There is obvious incongruity and error of approach in the findings of the notified officer which have been arrived at in 'a rough shod manner. The notified officer while dealing with people's rights in property is required to act judiciously, if not 113 judicially and in a quasi‑judicial manner and he must attend to each crucial question and not to dispose of the matter through a whimsical approach or leave the matters at guess which appears to have happened in this case. The admission in the face of the Court by a counsel can furnish a around for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari that is to declare the proceedings to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

4. The conclusion at which this Court in the facts and circumstances of this case .has arrived at is that the matter has not received proper treatment at the hands of the notified officer who has failed to decide the matter judiciously and in p a fair and just manner. In this view of the matter, I am constrained to set aside the impugned order and to remand the case to the Member Board of Revenue (S & R) who shall hear the petitioner as well as respondent No.l and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Since none has turned up on behalf of respondent No.l there shall be no order as to costs. A.A./N‑345/L Case remanded