1983 PLP 1975 (CLC)

P L D 1973 S C 236 ref. Imam Ali G. Kazi for Petitioners. Abdul Majid Khan for Respondent. Since admittedly petitioners Nos.' 2 to 6 who acquired the land in question from Petitioner No. 1 were not heard by respondent on remand, Honb'ble Supreme Court, the learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon case reported in P L D 1971 Lab. 108 and submitted, that on this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In addition to this the learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted, that admittedly petitioner's claim for allotment was not only based on Jagirdari land, but on Seri Khudkasht land also, which is evident from Annexure `E' attached to the petition, but this point was not at all taken into considera tion by the respondent on remand. The learned Advocate for the respondent was unable to rebut the above assertion made by the learned Advocate for the petitioners and submitted, that prima facie it seems, that both the contentions raised by the petitioners have some force, but according to him it seems from the impugned order, that these contentions were not raised before respondent and consequently they were not disposed of by the res pondent. I have gone through the impugned order as well as the documents filed by the petitioners. I find that the petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 acquired) the land originally transferred to petitioner No. 1, by Registered Sale Deed and consequently the impugned order, which was passed without giving opportunity of, hearing to these petitioners, cannot be sustained] as laid down by case reported in P L D 1971 Lab. 108, with which I am in full agreement, on account of the reasonings given in the said judgment. It is also clear from Annexure `E' that the petitioners' claim was not only based on Jagirdari land, but also Seri Khudkasht land, but unfortunately the same was not considered, perhaps as was not specifically raised by the petitioner No. I before respondent, although the documents were there on record. Keeping in view the above observations made by me, I consider this is a fit case for remand to respondent in view of the above facts.) Therefore, I set aside the impugned order dated 3rd June, 1975 and remand back the case to respondent; with the following directions :‑ (a) To grant opportunity to petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 to place their case before him, as bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. (b) To rehear the petitioner in respect of .Seri Khudkasht land as mentioned in his claim from and decide, if on the basis of such claim if proved, he is entitled to any allotment and there after to dispose of the case remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the light of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as given in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in P L D 1973 S C

236. The above petition stands disposed of in the terms of the above order, with no order as to Costs, K. M. A. Petition disposed of.