1986 PLP 1976 (MLD)

Khadim Nadeem Malik for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 20th April, 1986. Facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, at Mst. Maqsooda Begum petitioner submitted claim form No.3127 regarding the agricultural land left by her in village Aaron, tehsil Thanisar, District Karnal (India). This claim was verified for 411 Kanals and 12 Marlas in‑ the year 1952 and the petitioner was allotted /confirmed different lands in villages Nuria Korea Sharqi, Sadar; Dargahi Chan and Kalle Wala in District Dera Ghazi Khan. She claims to be in possession of the lands allotted to her.

2. It appears that the petitioner's claim was cancelled by the learned Member, Board of Revenue (B&R)/CSC Punjab and a communication, in that behalf was issued from the office of the learned Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing) Punjab on 6‑3‑1984. This communication was addressed to the Deputy Commissioner D.G. Khan. It reads as follows:‑ "The Member Board of Revenue (B&R)/CSC, Punjab, has been pleased to order that claim No. 3127 of Mst. Maqsooda Begum, being bogus one, stands cancelled. You are therefore, advised that if any allotment against the said claim had been obtained in your district the same may be resumed in favour of state forthwith under intimation to this office."

3. Feeling aggrieved with the aformentioned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue/CSC, petitioner filed the present constitutional petition.'

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the relevant record produced by the departmental representative. Perusal of the record shows that entitlement certificate issued to one Hamid for his claim in respect of the aforesaid village Aaron, Tehsil Thanisar district Karnal came under scrutiny in the year 1975 on the allegation that the special Jamabandi registers of the said village were bogus and forged. An inquiry was held by the Tehsildar Central Record Office. He recorded the statements of Munshi Amin‑ur-Rehman Patwari and Syed Ayub Ali Shah, Naib‑Tehsildar (Record). Patwari stated that the signatures of the Indian Officers on the Jamabandi of village Aaron were forged and bogus. He further deposed that the signatures on the Fard Haqiat issued to the aforesaid Hamid did not tally with the original signatures of Said Ali Shah, Naib‑Tehsildar. Ayub Ali Shah, Naib‑Tehsildar in his statement confirmed his previous report dated 5‑6‑1975 which was to the effect that the entire record consisting of special Jamabandi Registers of Chhant Haqdaran of village Aaron was bogus. Tehsildar after holding the inquiry submitted his report to the Member Board of Revenue on 3‑2‑1976. Relevant portion of the report is reproduced hereunder:‑ "In view of the above facts the Fard Haqiat of claim form No.982 is found to be bogus and as such it is liable for cancellation. The Assistant Commissioner at the time of cancellation of allotments may afford an opportunity of hearing to the claimant. In other cases we may issue a letter to all the officers of the district concerned mentioning the No. of Claim Forms and the names of the right holders that the claim forms of the above said village have been fraudulently verified and as such their Fard Haqiats may be treated as cancelled and action for the cancellation of the area may be taken according to the law and procedure."

5. It appears that it was in pursuance of the afore‑referred report of the Tehsildar that the learned Member proceeded to cancel the claim of the petitioner. Main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order of the Warned Member/CSC cancelling the claim of the petitioner and directing the Deputy Commissioner to resume the land allotted to her has been passed at the back of the petitioner and without notice to her. Learned counsel submits that the finding recorded by the Tehsildar in the inquiry conducted in the case of Hamid were ex' parte and in any case, the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity before any order prejudicial to her interest could be passed. Learned counsel appearing for the Settlement Department does not dispute the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue has been passed without hearing the petitioner. In these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be struck down on the short ground that it is violative of the principle of natural justice. This petition is, therefore, allowed, the impugned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, cancelling the petitioner's claim is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It shall, however, be open to the learned Member, Board of Revenue/CSC or the notified officer to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, of course, after hearing the petitioner as also respondent No.3, who claims to be an informant. With these observations, this petition stands disposed of but with no order as to costs. H . B.T . Petition allowed.