1991 PLP 2394 (MLD)
MADAD ALI SHAH — Petitioner Versus REVENUE MINISTER and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 2394 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MADAD ALI SHAH — Petitioner Versus REVENUE MINISTER and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 2394 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 2394 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 2394 (MLD) (MADAD ALI SHAH — Petitioner Versus REVENUE MINISTER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Aslam Riaz for Petitioner.
- Rana Muhammad Arif for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 32 & 34
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Petitioner was appointed Mutwalli with regard to a piece of land reserved for graveyard-- Petitioner was subsequently treated as encroacher and ordered to be evicted from piece of land without affording him an opportunity of being heard
No order adverse to the interest of -a person could be passed without granting him opportunity of being heard
While deciding whether petitioner was encroacher, he should have been associated with the enquiry being conducted by the Assistant Commissioner
Order in question was thus, violative of law and same was not sustainable
Constitutional petition was accepted and order in question, was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect
Collector, however, could proceed afresh in accordance with law after granting opportunity to petitioner of being heard.
Judgment & Decree
M. Aslam Riaz for Petitioner. Rana Muhammad Arif for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th November, 1990. The dispute in this case relates to a piece of land reserved for graveyard in Chak No.401-G.B. Tehsil Samundri, District Faisalabad. According to the petitioner he was appointed as Matwalli of the graveyard by the Assistant Commissioner on the recommendation of the Union Council concerned. Now his grievance is that without affording an opportunity of being heard to him, the Assistant Commissioner under the instructions of Minister for Revenue has passed an order under section 32/34 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act of 1912, treating the petitioner as an encroacher and directed his eviction forthwith.
2. In the report and parawise comments submitted by respondent No.2 it has been stated that the petitioner is an illegal occupant of the land in question where unauthorised construction has also been raised by him. It is, however, not denied in the report that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard or that the proceedings were initiated on the orders of the Minister.
3. It is assumable that no order adverse to the interest of a person can be passed without granting him an opportunity of being heard. In the present case there is a clear violation of this principle. It appears that respondent No.1 has acted with undue haste in his anxiety to comply with the order of the Minister without realising that the order passed by the Minister was equivocal as it had only directed that if the contents of the application made by Muhammad Hanif were correct, the encroachment may be removed. In all fairness, while deciding that the petitioner was encroacher, he should have been associated with the enquiry being held by the Assistant Commissioner. The impugned order is, therefore, clearly violative of law and cannot be sustained. As a result of what has been stated above, this petition is accepted and the impugned order of the Collector Samundri dated 15th July, 1990 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It shall however, be open to the Collector to proceed afresh in accordance with law after granting opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. There shall be no order as to costs. AA./M-3047/L Petition accepted.