2000 PLP 2746 (YLR)

Date of hearing: 18th February 2000, The case has a chequered history. The land in dispute measuring 1,488 Kanals and 13 Marlas was allotted at Khata RL‑11 No.73 of village Maujokey Maliyan and land measuring 819 Kanals 19 Marlas was allotted at Khata RL‑11 No.27 of village Leel, District Sheikhupura in favour of one Murad Khan. He sold this land to Naseer Ahmad, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners on 2‑7‑1959. Said Murad Khan was tried under Martial Law Regulation No.49 by a Special Military Court, for committing fraud and misrepresentation in securing the said allotment. He was found guilty, sentenced to imprisonment and fine on 1‑7‑1960 and finally the property aforesaid was ordered to be forefeited. Both the aforesaid Khatas of Murad were cancelled on 24‑6‑1961. The land in dispute thus, became available was then allotted to respondents 1 to 3 on 16‑7‑1961.

2. Leaving aside the unnecessary details, allotment in favour of Murad Khan was restored by the Settlement Commissioner with the power of Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order, dated 4‑3‑1968 but was again cancelled by the Settlement Officer/Additional Settlement Commissioner vide his order, dated 30‑5‑1968. Against the order, dated 30‑5‑1968 of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, Naseer Ahmad filed two separate appeals before the learned Settlement Commissioner which were allowed vide order, dated 21‑1‑1969 and the case was remanded to the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner.

3. It was finally disposed of by the Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer vide his order, dated 3‑9‑1977 which has been impugned in this petition. The order, dated 4‑3‑1968 was set aside and allotment in favour of respondents 1 to 3 was restored.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the predecessor‑in -interest of the petitioner Naseer Ahmad had died on 13‑2‑1977, his legal representatives were not impleaded and, thus, the petitioners were condemned unheard. He contends that it was a case which has to be remanded for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for respon dents 1 to 3 have vehemently contended that there are no equities in favour of the petitioners and no interference is called for in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court as interference might result in perpetuation of ill‑gotten gains.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that Naseer Ahmad, petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest had died on 13‑2‑1977 and the petitioners were not' brought on the record. Therefore, there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they were c6ndmned unheard. I am not inclined to examine the case on merits because of the order proposed to be made.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 3‑9‑1977 is declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the case is remanded to, the, learned M.B.R.(S&R) for entrusting . it to a duly constituted Notified Officer who will decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties and in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of entrustment of case to him. The parties shall bear their own costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./H‑17/L. Petition allowed.