1993 PLP 1947 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 28th June, 1992. Muhammad Siddique petitioner herein through this writ petition has assailed the validity of the order dated 14‑9‑1976 passed by respondent No.1 whereby the allotment of the land made in favour of the predecessor‑in interest of the petitioner, namely, Ijaz Ahmad was cancelled, The petitioner claims that the land measuring 62 Kanals 12 Marlas situated in village Garjakh, District Gujranwala, was allotted/ confirmed on 29‑6‑1966 in favour of Ijaz Ahmad. Out of the aforesaid land the petitioner purchased 42 Kanals 2 Maflas for sum of Rs.35,000 through a sale‑deed 26‑4‑1967, which was registered on 9‑6‑1967 in his favour. The transaction was mutated in his favour on 29‑7‑1967 and reflected in the subsequent record of rights.

2. On 12‑2‑1974 the respondents Nos. 3 to 6 moved an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, against Ijaz Ahmad, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioner on the ground that the allotment of land in question was obtained by him fraudulently. The informers did not implead the vendees in the application. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner after perusing RL‑11 and verifying certain facts from the Patwari held vide impugned order dated 14‑9‑1967 that the allotment had been obtained by Ijaz Ahmad fraudulently. He, therefore, cancelled the allotment of land and declared all the subsequent transactions based on that allotment of no legal effect. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was incumbent upon respondent No.1 as also the informer to have impleaded the petitioner as one of the respondent and the petitioner ought not to have been condemned unheard. He has further stated that respondent No.1 did not get verification of the claim from the Central Record Office. It is further stated that the petitioner is a bona tide purchaser for value, through registered sale‑deed and no order adverse to his interest could have been passed without hearing him.

4. Learned counsel for the Settlement Department supported the impugned order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, mainly, on the ground that RL‑11 lacked particulars of the claim etc. He also stated that Mushtari Manadi was conducted in the village and the petitioner, therefore, had notice of the proceedings culminating in passing the impugned order. It was also stated that since the original order of allotment was fraudulent, all transactions based thereon were thus void.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order as well as other documents on the file. 1t is true that the petitioner was not impleaded as party to the application nor he was heard by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner when the impugned order was passed by him. The fact that the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner was conscious that the land in dispute was sold by the allottee to various persons, it was necessary for him to have heard them, particularly when their names were ascertainable from the revenue record. Admittedly the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner did not get the claim verified from the Central Recrod Officer.

6. For the foregoing reasons the impugned order was passed against the petitioner contrary to the cardinal principles of natural justice. In the result, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is declared to be of no legal effect.

7. At this stage learned counsel for the Settlement Department prayed that the matter be referred to the Notified Officer for proceeding in the matter after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other vendees of the land in dispute. The case is accordingly remitted to the Member, Board of Revenue (incharge Settlement Wing) for nomination of the Notified Officer, who shall hear the petitioner as well as other vendees of the land in dispute and pass fresh order in accordance with law, within three months from the date of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. H. B. T./ M‑1079 /L Petition allowed.