MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.- Instant constitutional petition prayed orders dated 12.5.2004 and 16.2.2005 passed by Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore (respondent No.1) to be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequence whereby first review petition against judgment dated 9.10.2003 in ROR No.239/2004 was accepted and second review by the petitioner was dismissed, respectively.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that predecessor of respondents No.2 and 3 namely Ghulam Muhammad deceased, got allotment of land measuring 42 kanals and 10 marlas alongwith Khurshid Bibi and, Bano being heirs of Nathu. Deceased under the Ejected Tenants Scheme vide letter No.650. The land so allotted was sold by the allottees to Shafqat Hussain and Tasaduq Hussain respondents No.4 and 5. Respondents No.2 and 3, according to the petitioner, got another allotment of 100 kanals 15 marlas being heirs of Nathu deceased by concealing their previous allotment out of fraud/misrepresentation under same scheme for "Ejected Tenants" which was consequently challenged by him by way of an appeal, claiming that the land so allotted was in his cultivating possession for the last 20 years. The petitioner after withdrawing his appeal from Executive District Officer (Revenue), Sargodha filed an application under section 30(2), of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab), Act, 1912 before the Member, Board of Revenue (respondent No.1) for cancellation of conveyance deeds dated 12.12.1975 and 14.4.2003 in favour of respondents No.2 and 3. Petitioner's application was entertained by respondent No.1 and respondents were restrained from transferring the land in question, besides which, a report was requisitioned from District Collector in order to satisfy as to whether the State land was correctly transferred. This was done by respondent No.1 vide order dated 9.10.2003.
3. Respondents No.4 and 5, in the meanwhile, had filed a review petition against order dated 9.1 0.2003 (Review No.239/2004) which was accepted with the findings that land was lawfully allotted to respondents No.2 and 3 who correctly transferred to respondents No.4 and 5 and they are bona fide purchasers. This review was allowed on 12.5.2004.
4. Petitioner was not arrayed as a party to Review Petition No.239/2004 thus he being aggrieved of order dated 12.5.2004 filed another review that the order dated 9.10.2003 by respondent No.1 had been passed on their application and the subsequent order of review being against their interest, the same could not have been reviewed without notice to them. Respondent No.1 refused to interfere vide order dated 1.6.2.2005. The petitioner thereafter tiled instant Constitutional petition for the relief noted above. The respondents in response to notice by this Court have appeared and are represented through their counsel.
5. I have minutely considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undisputedly, the petitioner was not made party by respondents No. 4 and 5 while filing review against order dated 9.10.2003 which had been passed on his application. Similarly, no notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 1 earlier to passing of impugned order dated 12.5.2004, contrary to the previsions of law and principles of natural justice. The petitioner may had no right, title or interest in the property in question but since the order dated 9.10.2003 was passed on his application in ROR No. 1439/2003 he had a right of hearing earlier to review of order on his petition which was being recalled against his interest.
Learned counsel for the respondents could not refute the fact that neither any notice was granted to him by respondent No.1 earlier to order dated 12.5.2004 thus the same was not sustainable because provision of notice to the affected party and principles of Natural Justice have to be read in each Statute, even if those have not been specifically provided, therein. Reference in this behalf can be made to the judgments in the cases of Mst. Zahida Sattar and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2002 SC 408), Messrs Murree Brewery Company Limited Vs. Director- General, Excise and Taxation and 3 others (1991 M LD 267) and Gul Muhammad Vs. Buxal and 2 others (1991 CLC 229). Contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was heard at the the of decision of his review petition No. 560/2004 has not impressed me as this hearing would not cure the inherit defect in order dated 12.5.2004, as per judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Collector, Sahiwal and 2 others Vs. Muhammad Akhtar (1971 SCM R 681) and Fateh Muhammad Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad and 9 others (1981 SCM R 1061). As a matter of fact, respondent No.1 should have decided the entire lis pending before him including ROR No. 1439/2003 and if according to his estimation, the petitioner had no right to the land allotted to respondents No. 2 and 3, his application in this behalf (ROR No. 1439/2003) should have also been dismissed.
6. For the reasons noted above, both the impugned orders dated 12.5.2004 and 16.2.2005 are not sustainable thus by accepting instant Constitutional petition, those are declared to be illegal and non-existent, with the result the that the respondents review petition No. 239/2004 shall be deemed to be pending before respondent No. 1 which shall be decided afresh after hearing the . Parties, including the petitioner, alongwith ROR No. 1439/2003. Parties are directed to appear before respondent No. 1 on 26.7.2005. There will be no order as to costs.