1984 PLP 674 (CLC)

‑‑Art. 9‑Petitioner in possession of disputed land not provided opportunity of hearing before its allotment to respondents‑Order of allotment passed behind back of petitioner, held, not tenable in law and set aside. This order will dispose of Writ Petition No. 469‑R of 1982 and Writ Petition No. 171‑R of 1983 as identical questions of law and fact are involved therein.

1. The petitioner in these writ petitions seek declaration that the im pugned orders passed by respondents Nos. I to 3 are illegal and having been passed without lawful authority mainly on the ground that the land in dispute was initially allotted in favour of Qazi Muhammad Sharif in 1963 from whom they had purchased the same for the last over one and half decade. It is submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the land eversince. It was further submitted that respondents Nos. 4 to 6 in pursuance of memo randum, dated 28th June, 1982 issued by respondent No. 1 and addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala secured allotment of the land in dispute. It is submitted that the land was not available for allotment in favour of respondents Nos. 4 to

6. It is contended that no notice was ever served upon the petitioners nor they were provided opportunity of hearing before the allotment of land in dispute was made in favour of the aforesaid respondents. It was lastly contended that in any case after the repeal of the evacuee laws no authority vested in the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to make allotment of the land in dispute to the respondents without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, contended that the land in dispute was available for allotment and as such the petitioners have no locus stand! to question the validity of the impugned orders passed by the competent authority. He, however, was unable to controvert the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are in possession of the disputed land for the last many years and that they were not heard by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 when the hand in dispute was allotted in favour of the respondents Nos. 4 to 6.

4. After hearing learned counsel, for the parties and perusal of the documents on the file it is evident that the petitioners who are admittedly in possession of the disputed property have not been provided opportunity of bearing before the allotment of the land in dispute is made in favour of respondents Nos. 4 to

6. The impugned orders of allotment made in favour of the respondents Nos. 4 to 6 having been passed behind the back of the petitioners are not tenable under the law and the same are hereby set aside and declared to be of no legal consequence.

6. In the result these petitions are allowed and the cases are remanded to the respondent No. 1 who shall entrust the same to an officer competent to dispose of the same afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties, possibly within a period of three months.

6. There shall be no order as to costs. M. Y. M. petition allowed.