1986 PLP 999 (MLD)

Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th March 1986. Through this Constitutional Petition Khushi Muhammad and others, the petitioners want this Court to declare the order, dated 28‑1‑1977 of Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, respondent No.1, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. Muhammad Ismail was a claimant displaced person‑ His entitlement in the terms of P.I. Units was calculated as 1668. He filed claim. Same' laid was proposed for allotment to him. Before the proposal could be approved, he died. So, the Mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in it the name of his sister Mst. Mukhtar Bibi on 27‑8‑1960 and the proposal made in the name of Muhammad Ismail was dropped The land measuring 132 Kanals was proposed and confirmed to her on 11‑4 1961. and 9‑3‑1963 respectively in lieu of 313 P.I. Units. She sold this land to Abdul Ghafoor, Wali Muhammad and Muhammad Ibrahim in equal shares vide Mutation No‑503, dated 30‑1‑1964. The land measuring 107 Kanals and 11 Marlas in village Rendheer for 256 P.I. Units was proposed on 9‑3‑1963 and confirmed on 7‑9‑1964 in her name. Khushi Muhammad,Mst. Fatima Bibi, Inayat, Wali Muhammad and Muhammad Ibrahim petitioners. They secured the possession of land purchased by them. The land measuring 38 Kanals equal to 246 P.I. Units in village Kathiali, which was confirmed in her name on 9‑6‑1962 was purchased by Muhammad Ibrahm deceased, Petitioner No.5. It so happened that Nazar Muhammad Respondent 2 filed Mukhbari application before the Settlement Commissioner on 15‑2‑1974 which was accepted vide impugned order, dated 28‑1‑1977. The learned Settlement Commissioner stated:‑ Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the petitioners, who were bona fide purchasers for value were neither served with any notice nor heard by the learned Settlement Commission r before passing the impugned order affecting their interests, adversely. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned order. They, however, have not been able to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. 1 find that no notice was served on the persons of the petitioners who were bona fide purchasers; that there was no justification for the Settlement Commissioner to direct that the notice be published in the Press for hearing on 28‑10‑1976; that the ex parte order against Muhammad Ismail and others, the respondent therein, was also passed without any legal and factual justification and that the petitioners were not heard before passing the impugned order affecting their rights adversely. I further find that the learn Settlement Commissioner has not ‑attended to the rights of the petitioner who are bona fide purchasers for value, s and as such, the matter has not been appreciated and considered by the learned Settlement Commissioner in its true perspective. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the impugned order is not only illegal but has also beer passed without lawful authority.

5. For what has been said above, the petition is accepted and the matter is remanded to Additional Commissioner(R)/Notified Officer, Gujranwala, for fresh decision in accordance with law after giving the parties opportunity of being heard. The parties are left to bear theire H.B.T Petition accepted.