Through this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.3.1997 passed by Respondent No, 4, whereby land earlier allotted as "Moeens" in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 2.3.1977 was adjusted in favour of Respondents Nos, 5 to 11 against their "right of return" and subsequent order dated 29.1.2002 and 14.11.1998 whereby revision petition and appeal filed by the petitioners were dismissed by Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 respectively.
2. Briefly the facts are that on the application filed by the petitioners as "Moeens" (Tharkhan- Lohatr), the then EACO vido order dated 2.3.1977 allotted land measuring 45-Kanals 12-Marlas from Lot No,. 47 to Walli Muhammad Petitioners No,1 and 47-Kanals land out of Lot No, 48 was allotted to Hafiz Ahmad Petitioner No, 2, but the said allotment order was not given effect in the revenue record in spite of reminders issued for the purpose. In the meanwhile, the same land was adjusted to Respondent Nos, 5 to 11 by Respondent No, 4 vide order dated 24.3.1997 against right of return (Haq-e-Wapsi) of the respondents i,e, Syed Ahmad Ali. The petitioners filed appeal and then revision petition, which were dismissed by Respondents Nos, 3 and 2 vide orders 14.11.1998 and 29.1.2002 respectively. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the land could not be allotted to Respondents No,5 to 10 being owned by the Provincial Government at per policy though is not in possession of the petitioners yet it finds mentioned in the impugned orders passed by Respondents Nos, 2. and 3 that the land could not be allotted to the respondents as it was owned by the Provincial Government. It is further contended that Respondent No, 4 adjusted land measuring 68 Kanals 12 Marlas in favour of the respondents vide order dated 24.3.1997 which was earlier allotted to the petitioners and they were condemned unheard as they were not afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing the said order against the principle of, natural justice. It is further contended that the appellant Court admitted the claim of the petitioners that the land was allotted to them according to their record but passed a non-speaking and contradictory order. It is also contended that the Member Board of Revenue also passed mechanical order while dismissed revision petition without considering the arguments of the petitioners and upheld the orders of the revenue officers without any good reason. It is further contended that in the report and parawise comments it has been admitted by the respondents that the petitioners were "Moeens" and the land was earlier allotted to them. It is also contended that Respondents No, 5 to .10 were allotted excess land measuring 341 Kanals from their entitlement. It is further contended that the petitioners have constructed houses on the disputed land and are residing there for the last so many years, but the same land has been allotted to Respondents Nos, 5 to 11 who had already been allotted land measuring 1100 Kanals. It is lastly contended that the order regarding allotment of land in favour of the petitioners was never challenged by any body, which having attained finality, the land could not be adjusted in favour of Respondents Nos, 5 to 11 against their "right of return" as the same was not available for the purpose.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for Respondents Nos, 5 to 11 opposes this petition on the ground that the land was not reserved in the schedule for allotment to Moeens. It is further contended that the Member, Board of Revenue has already directed that if the petitioners are entitled to the allotment of land, they can be accommodated in the other available State land. It is also contended that the orders dated 2.3.1977 passed in favour of petitioners was illegal as the land was not available for allotment to Moeens. It is further contended that the concurrent findings have been arrived at by the revenue hierarchy and writ petition may be dismissed.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the contents of this petition as well as the documents attached therewith. In the report and comments submitted by District Officer (Revenue) Layyah it has been admitted that on the application filed by the petitioners for allotment of the land as Moeens the then EACO allotted land measuring 45 Kanals 12 Marlas from Lot Nos, 47 and 47 Kanals out of Lot No, 48 to Wali Muhammad Lohar and Hafiz Ahmad respectively on 2.3.1077. It was also admitted in Para Nos, 14 to 16 that the Respondents Nos, 5 to 11 were allotted 341 Kanals land in excess of their entitlement. After perusal of the comments it is established that the petitioner were allotted land measuring about 92 Kanals from the above-said land vide order dated 2.3.1977. If the said order was not implemented by the lower staff it does not mean that the said order became ineffective as it was never challenged or set aside by any authority. On the other hand it is also established that the petitioners after the allotment of land in their favour were in the possession of the same and they claim to have constructed their houses and are residing there since then. According to the petitioners, they have developed the said land. It is inefficiency of the EACO Respondent No, 4 that he could not get implemented the order passed by him on 2.3.1977 in favour of the petitioners for the allotment of the land and the petitioners also could not get implemented the said order by the revenue staff being poor and un-influential persons in spite of that the reminders were issued by the EACO to the lower staff Patwari etc.
6. It is not denied that the EACO passed order dated 24.3.1997 in favour of Respondents Nos, 65 to 11 for adjustment of the. State land against their right of return without setting aside of the allotment order dated 2.3.1977 passed in favour of the petitioners which was still in the field. The petitioners are in possession of the said land. Respondent Nos, 5 to 11 were already adjusted land measuring 1100 Kanals and being big landlords, the revenue staff in order to please them made a favourable report resulting into !passing of order dated 24.3.1997 in their favour by Respondent No,
4. The said order on the face of it is illegal and unlawful as the said land was not available for allotment to Respondents Nos, 5 to 11 being already allotted to the petitioners, who were not even summoned by Respondent No, 4 before passing of the said order, hence the petitioners were condemned unheard, which is against the principle of natural justice. It is strange that neither the appellate Court nor the reversional Court took into consideration these facts and the appellate Court has passed the contradictory order as in Para 5 thereof it is admitted that the state land was allotted to the petitioners and without any reason has passed two lines order while dismissing the appeal, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Both the courts omitted to consider that order dated 2.3.1977 passed earlier in favour of the petitioners was never challenged by any body at the relevant time and it could not be set at naught only due to the reason that the lower revenue field staff had not implemented the same in the papers.
7. Since the land in dispute was already allotted to the petitioners in the capacity of "moeens" through order dated 2.3.19977 passed' by the competent authority, which still holds field, the same land could not be allotted to Respondents Nos, 5 to 11 through order dated 24.3.1997 without cancellation of the land from the name of the petitioners and when the basic order is illegal, the subsequent orders dated 14.11 1998 and 29.1.2002 passed on the basis of the same while dismissing appeal and revision petition of the petitioners cannot be maintained.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders dated 24.3.1997, 14.11.1998 and 29.1.2002 passed by Respondents Nos, 4, 3, and 2 respectively are set aside by accepting this writ petition and as the order dated 2.3.1977 -is still holds the filed, Respondent No, 4 is directed to get implemented the same in the revenue record within thirty days from the receipt of this order. The compliance report shall be submitted to this Court through the Additional Registrar of this Bench.