1994 PLP 397 (SCMR)

Ch. Asghar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.

3. Ch. Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.4 to

6. Date of hearing: 8th December, 1991. RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑‑‑This is an appeal by Ijaz Ahmad and others, appellants, against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 26‑3‑1966 dismissing in limine their writ petition.

2. Ijaz Ahmad and others, appellants, are the vendees of the land situate in village Ladheke Cheema, which was sold to them by one Abdullah for valuable consideration vide Mutation No.1908 sanctioned on 30‑1‑1977. Since then the appellants have been in possession thereof.

3. It appears that in 1974, on an information furnished by respondents 4 to 9 the allotments made in favour of Abdullah in village Thatha Chinna as well as in village Ladheke Cheema, which are both situated in Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujranwala, were found to be fraudulently obtained and treated as bogus. They were accordingly cancelled and the land was allotted to the informants Atta Muhammad and others, respondents Nos. 4 to

9. Since the appellants had not been impleaded as parties in the proceedings resulting in the cancellation of their allotments, the said order of cancellation was accordingly challenged through a writ petition by the appellants, which petition was dismissed in limine.

4. Being aggrieved by the above judgment, the appellants petitioned this Court for leave to appeal, which leave was granted.

5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents and have perused the record. There was a tussle between the appellants who were in occupation of the agricultural land occupied by them from a fraudulent allottee before 1973 and which was still in their occupation and persons who had furnished information about the fraudulent or bogus allotment as a result whereof the allotment was cancelled. But before this matter could be decided, the appellants had a right to be heard. They were not heard. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the case remanded to the Notified Officer to hear the appellants and then decide the matter. This, however, will not cover the lands obtained by Abdullah in Bahawalnagar in 1957.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is accepted, the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 26‑3‑1986 and of the learned Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore, dated 30‑6‑1977 are set aside and the case is remanded to the Notified Officer to hear the appellants and the respondents before deciding who shall have priority in the matter of allotment of the disputed agricultural land. The Notified Officer, however, shall not touch the land previously allotted to Abdullah in Bahawalnagar District in 1957. There shall be no order as to costs. A.A./I‑179/S Case remanded.