1980 PLP 1248 (CLC)

ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J. --The facts forming the background of this petition are that agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 15412, 3 & 4, 154/1-4, 194/4 and 195/1 & 2, and measuring about 30 acres, situated in deh Pabban, Taluka Khipro, district Sangbar, were surrendered under the M. L. Rs. 89/91 by the allottees Nasir Hyder and Aijaz Ahmed sons of Ahmed Mushtaq and one Mst. Aijaz Fatima. As the said allottees failed to exercise their option of re-purchasing the surrendered land, it was opted by the respondents 3 to 6 as tenants and they deposited the purchase price in the treasury through the challans as far back as in the years 1962, 1964 1966, 198 and 1973. Thereafter, the aforesaid survey numbers were some how allowed to the respondent No. 7 Nasir Hyder by the Rehabilitation Authorities on 13th October, 1972 against his claim. Nasir Hyder paid the rehabilitation fee and got the revenue record mutated in his name. Thereafter, Nasir Hyder sold said survey numbers to the petitioners on 27th November, 1972 through his attorney Ghulam Ali Shah under a registered sale deed and revenue record was also mutated in the names of the petitioners. On coming to know of the allotment of their land to Nasir Hyder, respondents 3 to 7 moved an application before the Assis tant Commissioner/ Deputy Settlement. Commissioner (Lands) Sanghar for cancellation of the allotment of the survey numbers in question to Nasir Hyder. The application was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and the respondents went in appeal before learned Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Sanghar who issued notice to the attorney of the allottee Nasir Hyder only. By his order dated 9th May, 1973, the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) held that since the land was "under option" of the sitting tenants, namely, the respondents 3 to 6, the land formed part of the surrendered pool and could not be legally allotted to the respondent Nasir Hyder by the rehabilitation authority, and proceeded to cancel the allotment of Nasir Hyder. Hence this petition. Mr. Mohammad Ali Shaikh appeared for the petitioners, while Mr. M. A. Ghani appeared for respondents 3 to

6. Respondent No. 7 Nasir Hyder and his counsel are both absent and no one appears for the official respondents. Mr. Mohammad Ali Shaikh. learned counsel for the petitioners con tended, inasmuch as the petitioners had purchased the survey numbers in question from the respondent No. 7 Nasir Hyder bona fide for a valuable consideration after verifying the revenue record which was subsequently mutated in favour of the petitioners, the latter were entitled to be heard before any order could be passed against their interest ; And since no such opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) violated rules of natural justice and was thus void and of no legal effect, notwithstanding the fact that the land in question having been surrendered under the M. L. Rs. 89/91 became State land and couid not be legally allotted to the respondent No.

7. Nasir Hyder by the Rehabilitation Authority. Mr. K.A. Ghani, learned counsel for the respondents 3-6 argued that the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 having opted und.r the law for purchase of the land in question and paid the price, the same could not be legally allotted to Nasir Hyder or sold by the latter to the petitioners. He however conceded that since the petitioners, who stood as Khateders in the revenue record, were not heard by the Deputy Commissioner Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), he had no objection if the impugned order is set ;side on this point only and the case is remanded to the Authorised officer for deciding the appeal afresh after giving opportunity of hearing try the petitioners, without disturbing the possession of the respondents Nos, 3 to

6. We feel that, in the circumstances appearing in the case, an oppor tunity of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioners before passing of the impugned order by the Deputy Commissioner( Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sanghar. Mr. K. A. Ghani has therefore, right conceded to the impugned order being set aside only on this ground and the matter being remanded for rehearing after notice to the petitioners. Accordingly, we declare the impugned order to be void and of n ,q legal effect for the reason that it was passed without hearing the petitioners, remand the case to the Board of Revenue Sind and direct that appeal filed by the respondents 3 to 6 be decided afresh by the Authorised Office under the law after notice to the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 7 Nasir Hyder or his attorney. Until fresh decision of the appeal, possession of the survey Nos. in question all remain with the respondents Nos. 3 to

6. The Authorised Officer is further directed to decide the appeal very expeditiously. There will be no costs. Order accordingly.