1989 PLP 130 (MLD)

Ch. Muhammad Aslam Sandher for Respondent No.

2. Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1989. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is directed against the order dated 28‑4‑1976 of the Settlement Commissioner (Lands)/Officer Incharge of the Border Area Allotment Committee, whereby he dismissed the petition of the, petitioners challenging the allotment of land measuring 24 Kanals 7 Marlas comprising Khasra No. 1042/1 in Chak Sarhali Kalan, Tehsil and District Kasur to respondent No. 2, although it previously stood allotted to his predecessor‑in7interest.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the land in dispute was allotted to the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners in 1956 and ever-since the allotment, their predecessor‑in‑interest remained in possession of the disputed land and after his death in 1962, the petitioners remained in possession of the same, but were dispossessed during I‑,c;ndency of this writ petition notwithstanding status quo order dated 6‑8‑1976 passed by this Court. The petitioners have already filed Criminal Original No. 58/W‑82 for initiating contempt proceedings against respondent No. 2 and others. The precise submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that he was an allottee of the land in dispute and, therefore, the same could not have been allotted to respondent No. 2 by the Border Area Allotment Committee without cancelling the first allotment in accordance with law by the competent authority and after providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, which was not done.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the land in dispute was never allotted to the petitioners. The same plea was taken by respondent No. 2 before the Settlement Commissioner

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with their assistance. The question whether the petitioners were or were not the allottees of the disputed land is a disputed question of fact. The petitioners have not placed on record a copy of the allotment order. The disputed Khasra No. 1042 was, however, shown m possession of the petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest Buland Khan in the Jamabandi for the year 1960‑61, but in the Jamabandi for the year 1964‑65 the disputed Khasra number was shown against one Chotoo and Bulanda, who were shown as tenants under the allottees. The possession of the petitioners is also not disputed till 1982. The impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed on that score alone.

5. In view of the above, the case is remanded to the Border Area Allotment Committee, Lahore, who shall examine the case afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties. If it is found that disputed land was duly allotted to the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners, the same shall remain intact with the petitioners, if found otherwise, the impugned order shall hold the field.

6. The parties are directed to appear before the Border Area Allotment Committee, Lahore on 19‑2‑1989 for further proceedings in the light of the observations made in this judgment and in accordance with law. To this extent, the writ petition is accepted but the parties shall bear their own costs. H.B.T./B‑101/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.