1989 PLP 1962 (MLD)

Hassan A. Sheikh for Petitioner. Syed Inayat Ali for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th October, 1988. AJMAL MIAN, C.J.--The petitioner which is a registered trust has impugned by this petition the order dated 12-9-1979, passed by respondent 2, purporting to resume the land, measuring 142 acres, bearing Survey No.149, Bungalow No.36, Hyderabad Cantonment (hereinafter referred to as the land). The brief facts leading to the riling of the above petition are that the land was acquired by the creator of trust on 15th January, 1892, and thereafter, he created the trust in April, 1894, in respect thereof and formally declared and registered on 21-4-1911. The land was classified as B-3, and according to the petitioner the grant was of the nature of the permanent lease free from any rent. It appears that the petitioner was served with a notice dated 25-6-1971 by respondent 3, stating therein that the premises had almost outlived and were crumbling down, the petitioner was called upon to carry out the necessary repair and renovation work immediately, failing which the action was to be taken for resumption of the plot. It further seems that the petitioner addressed a letter-dated 8-4-1979 to respondent 2, requesting that the grant be regularized into a Schedule VIII lease. It also undertook to pay the premium, if any, and the annual ground rent, which might be determined in accordance with the rules and prescribed formula. After that the petitioner received the impugned notice dated 12-9-1979, in which it was stated that the Government had deeded to resume the land under the provision of the separate Order of 1856 on one month's notice to file the objection against the issue of the said notice or resumption. In the above notice, the amount of compensation determined by respondent 2 for the payment to the petitioner was mentioned as Rs.1,

000. Upon the receipt of the above notice the petitioner has filed the present petition. In support of the above petition, Mr. Hassan A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently urged that respondent No.2 could not have resumed the land without first issuing the show-case notice to the petitioner, even if it is to be conceded that the land could have been resumed, which is denied b the petitioner. It has been further submitted that even the amount of compensation has not been fixed after hearing the petitioner. In our view, it will be just and proper to remand the case to respondent No.2 with the direction to decide the question, whether the land is to be resumed or not to be resumed, afresh after notice to the petitioner and after hearing him. It will be open to the petitioner and to the respondent to urge whatever pleas are available to them before respondent No.2. The party, if any, aggrieved by the order to be passed by respondent No.2 may invoke appropriate legal proceedings. The petition is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. H.B.T./D-50/K Order accordingly.