1989SCMR658 (PLP)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th March, 1988. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑These are 6 petitions for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order dated 17‑12‑1986 of the Baluchistan High Court whereby the constitutional petitions preferred by ‑the petitioners in C.P.S.L.As No.59, 60 and 61 were dismissed.

2. By an order dated 5‑8‑1975 a Member of the Boar of Revenue in Baluchistan allotted about 123 acres of land in village Baroot . Tehsil Hub of District Lasbela, to the petitioners to C.P.S.L.As No.18, 19 and 20, hereinafter called 'the allottee‑petitioners'. The price was to be paid at the rate of Rs.10 per index unit and the land was to be used for the purpose of growing food. On 22‑12‑1977 the Martial Law Administrator in Baluchistan issued Martial Law Order No.16. This Order empowered the Board of Revenue or any officer authorised by it to cancel any allotment made between 1‑1‑1972 to 4‑7‑1977 which was not covered by a regular scheme or which had been obtained by using official position or political influence or by means of fraud or mis‑representation of facts or in violation or relaxation of law, rules, conditions, policy, instructions or orders. The Order also provided that before an order of cancellation was made the allottee should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In pursuance of the Order, the Board of Revenue issued a notice to the allottee- petitioners why their allotment should not be cancelled. It seems that no final order was made on the basis of the notice and it was ultimately withdrawn on 4‑3‑1982. However, before its withdrawal the Collector on 16‑6‑1981 executed a sale‑deed in favour of the allottee‑petitioners after they had deposited Rs.1,84,816.76 as price of the land.

3. After obtaining the sale‑deed the allottee‑petitioners, in September. 1981, transferred by separate sale‑deeds about 50 acres of the land in favour of the petitioners in C.P.S.L.As No.59, 60 and 61, hereinafter referred to as transferee‑petitioners. The transferee‑petitioners approached the Collector for permission to convert the nature of the land from agricultural to sikni. The permission was duly granted. Subsequently, the transferee‑petitioners in C.P.S.L.As No.59 and 60 made huge investments running into hundreds of millions of rupees in setting up industrial factories and plants in the land purchased by them after obtaining no objection certificates from the Industries Department of the Provincial Government.

4. On 11‑2‑1979 the Martial Law Administrator in Baluchistan reconstituted Martial Law Order No.16 and re‑issued it as Martial Law Order No.46. The reconstituted Order, too, enabled the Board of Revenue or any officer authorised by it to cancel allotments made between 1‑1‑1972 and 4‑7‑1977 in circumstances similar to those enumerated in the earlier Order. It also provided that no order of cancellation should be made without giving the allottee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In pursuance of the reconstituted Order fresh notices were issued to the allottee‑petitioners as well as to other allottees of State Land in Baluchistan why their allotments should not be cancelled. A Committee consisting of Member, Board of Revenue, Commissioner, Qalat Division and Deputy Commissioner, Lasbela was set up to inquire into the circumstances under which the various allotments had been made to the allottees. So far as the allottee‑petitioners are concerned, the Committee heard them and came to the conclusion that they had obtained the allotments through political/official influence and outside the usual norms of law. Accordingly, it recommended resumption of the allotment and the refund of the price paid by the allottee‑petitioners. The Martial Law Administrator accepted this recommendation and cancelled the allotment.

5. When the transferee‑petitioners learnt about the cancellation of the allotment, they filed constitutional petitions in the High Court. By a detailed order a Division Bench dismissed the petitions. It however, recommended that as the transferee‑petitioners in C.P.S.L.As No.59 and 60 had made huge capital investments in setting up factories in the areas purchased by them, their request for regularization might be seriously considered. The allottee‑petitioners as well as the transferee‑petitioners seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.

6. In support of these petitions it is contended that the Martial Law Order No.16 as well as the reconstituted Order No.46 referred only to such allotments as were made between 1‑1‑1972 and 4‑7‑1977. In this case the sale‑deed was executed by the Collector in favour of the allottee‑petitioners on 16‑6‑1981. That being so, the said Martial Law Orders were in terms not applicable to their case. On behalf of the transferee‑petitioners it is further contended that even though the sales made in their favour were entered in the revenue record, yet they were not given any opportunity of being heard before the order of cancellation was made. The omission of the authority concerned in this regard not only violated the principles of natural justice but also the express bar contained in the Orders themselves that no allotments should be cancelled without giving an opportunity of being heard to the allottees.

7. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners need examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.2,500 in each petition. The appeals may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any.

8. C.P.S.LAs No.18, 19 and 20 are barred by 44 days. The question whether the limitation should be condoned will be considered at the time when the appeals come up for hearing. A.A./A‑405/S Leave to appeal granted.