1991 PLP 1317 (CLC)

Nemo for Respondents Nos.1 to

3. Syed Jam9hed Ali Shah and Sardar Abdul Latif Khan for Respondent No.4. Nemo for Respondents Nos.5 to

16. Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1991. It is not necessary to recapitulate all the facts but for the present purpose it would suffice to say that on 26th January, 1968, land measuring 448 Kanals situated in village Dogranwala Mallian, Tehsil and District Gujranwala, was confirmed in the name of Maharban Khan. A part of this land measuring 225 Kanals is said to have been purchased by respondents Nos.14 to 16, who in turn alienated it to the petitioners through a registered deed of sale dated 30th February, 1975. Earlier on 13th November, 1973, respondents Nos.2 and 4 had filed an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, complaining that the allotment had been obtained by Meharban Khan through fraud and misrepresentation. This plea found favour with the Settlement Commissioner with the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, who proceeded to direct the cancellation of the property on 25th April 1977. Three writ petitions including Writ Petition No.442/R/1980 by the present petitioners were filed in this Court which were allowed on 19th June, 1984, on the ground that the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of being heard. The impugned order dated 25th April, 1977 was, therefore, set aside and the case was remanded to the Notified Officer for decision afresh after hearing the parties. The post remand proceedings culminated in the order dated 2nd January, 1986 being passed by respondent No.1 who maintained the earlier order of cancellation. This order has now been assailed by the petitioner in this Constitutional petition, mainly on the ground that they were not afforded an, opportunity of being heard.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent had to concede this factual position. That being so, it is obvious that order of remand passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.442/R/1980 has not been complied with and, therefore, the impugned order is clearly without any lawful authority and is not sustainable. As a result, this petition is accepted, the order dated 2nd January, 1986, is declared to be Without lawful authority and of no legal effect, with the result that the application' filed by respondents Nos.2 to 4 shall be deemed to be pending before respondent No.1 and ' shall be decided afresh in terms of the‑order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.442/R/1980 on 19th June, 1984. As the dispute has remained pending for the last 18 years, before different Courts, it is directed that respondent No.1 shall complete the proceedings within three months from today. There shall be no orders as to costs. A.A./M‑2882/L Petition accepted.