1986 PLP 1006 (MLD)

Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Respondent No.1. Muhammad Aslartr Sirtdhu for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 5th February 1986. Through this constitutional petition, Ghulam Muhammad petitioner wants this Court to declare the order, dated 1‑7‑1978, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner/ Additional Settlment Commissioner (Land), Sheikhupura respondent No.1 to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The dispute relates to land measuring 35 Kanals; 2 Marlas situated in Mauza Jhamke, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. This land was allotted to Abdul Ghani father of Muhammad Ashraf respondent No.3 against his verified claim. On his death, Muhammad Ashraf respondent No.3 inherited the same. He then sold the land to Ghulam Muhammad petitioner vide registered sale‑deed, dated 15‑11‑1975. It so happened that Allah Ditta respondent No.2 filed Mukhbari application before the Additional Settlement Commissioner respondent No.1 against allotment in favour of Abdul Ghani. The application was dismissed for non‑prosecution as well as on merits on 5‑10‑1977. Thereafter, Allah Ditta respondent No.2 moved application for the restoration and rehearing of his Mukhbari application whereupon, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner/ Additional Settlement Commissioner vide impugned order, dated 1‑7‑1978 passed following order after hearing the parties:‑ "Both the parties are present along with their counsel. Arguments heard. In the interest of justice, I order that the case be restored and then be decided in accordance with law after hearing both the parties:" Hence this petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the Mukhbari application filed by Allah Ditta respondent No.2 having been dismissed on merits on 5‑10‑1977, the Additional Settlement Commissioner was not 'authorised to restore the same after the repeal of evacuee laws. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 supported the impugned order. It may be noted that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have been ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties with care. I do not feel persuade to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the Mukhbari application was dismissed in default as well as was decided on merits ex parte on 5‑10‑r975 and as such the Additional Settlement Commissioner was quite competent to restore the same and rehear it. There was no legal restrain for not restoring or rehearing the Mukhbari application, which had admittedly been decided without hearing the respondent. I am convinced1 that in the interest of justice, it was very much necessary that their application of the respondent should have been reheard. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner has not flouted the provisions of relevant law. The impugned order does not suffer from defect on jurisdiction. I do not see any legal infirmity in the impugned order. For what has been said above there being no merit, the petition is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H . B . T. Petition dismissed.