2010 PLP 629 (CLC)

AFTAB AHMAD MANEKA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-IV).

The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order dated 22-12-2008, passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Vehari in an appeal filed before him against the order dated 5-9-2003, passed by the District Officer (Revenue), Vehari whereby he by taking suoa motu action reviewed his earlier order dated 11-9-2002 and rejected the application of the present petitioner for grant of proprietary rights of State land measuring 100 Kanals, situated in Chak No.365-EB, Burewala, District Vehari.

2. Arguments heard and record perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted written arguments which are available on the file of the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order was illegal and against the law and facts of the case. The land in question was allotted to the petitioner under temporary cultivation lease scheme for a period of 5 years i.e. Kharif 1995 to Rabi 2000 and the petitioner fulfilled all terms and conditions of the lease. The petitioner was declared eligible for grant of proprietary rights, therefore, permission to deposit of Rs.2,60,250 was also granted; but the DO(R) Vehari reviewed his earlier order without any justification. That order was passed in absence of the petitioner against the principles of natural justice. Some other allottees were granted proprietary rights in the same situation and circumstances. The petitioner fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the lease, therefore, he was lawfully entitled for grant of proprietary rights. Finally, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.

4. The District Officer (Revenue), Vehari in his report dated 8-6-2009 submitted that the land in question was allotted to the petitioner along with some other allottees for a period of 5 years commencing from Kharif, 1995 to Rabi, 2000 but due to certain litigation, Parcha Dakhal was issued for Kharif, 1996 to Rabi, 2001. Thereafter, the lessees applied for grant of proprietary rights under Notification dated 10-7-2001 and case for grant of proprietary rights in favour of present petitioner was processed and forwarded to the DO(R), Vehari who vide order dated 11-9-2002 firstly granted permission to deposit Government dues but later on, reviewed his order and rejected the application for grant of proprietary rights. That order was assailed after 4 years and 6 months through appeal which was dismissed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Vehari.

5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record of case. The report received from the DO(R), Vehari which is available on the file of the case has also been perused. The main contention of the petitioner is that the order dated 11-9-2002 whereby the DO(R), Vehari granted proprietary rights of the land in question in his favour was reviewed through the impugned order dated 5-9-2003 by the DO(R), Vehari in his absence, therefore, the said impugned order is nullity under the law. Keeping into consideration, the above said contention of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 5-9-2003, passed by the DO(R), Vehari has been perused. This factum stands substantiated from the said impugned order that the same has been passed by the DO(R), Vehari without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, the maxim, "audi alteram partem" is fully applicable in this matter. In this way, it can safely be held that the impugned order dated 5-9-2003, passed by the DO(R), Vehari is not tangible under the law. Consequently, the impugned order dated 22-12-2008, passed by the EDO(R), Vehari whereby he upheld the above said impugned order cannot be termed as a valid order under the law. It is a well settled proposition of law that when the impugned order dated 5-9-2003, passed by the DO(R), Vehari is not found to be legal and proper, the entire structure built on it shall crumble automatically.

6. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for remand as the impugned order dated 5-9-2003, passed by the DO(R), Vehari and dated 22-12-2008, passed by the EDO(R), Vehari are suffering from legal and factual infirmities. These are set aside. The revision petition is accepted. The matter is remanded to the DO(R), Vehari with the direction to decide the matter afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner strictly on merits. H.B.T./1/Rev.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? case remanded.