' NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, J.---The learned counsel for the petitioners does not want to press this constitutional petition on behalf of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 and to the extent of those petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that petitioners Nos. 1 and 4 who have major shares with respect to the subject land have not been heard properly. The learned counsel for the respondent/Border Area Committee was directed by this Court vide order dated 15-3-2010 to intimate specifically as to which of the petitioners were provided hearing by the Border Area Committee. The learned counsel for the Border Area Committee has submitted that notices were issued to petitioners Nos. 1 and 4 but they did not appear. Further the learned counsel for the respondent/Border Area Committee is not in possession of any document showing service of the notices upon the petitioners Nos. 1 and 4.
3. In the interest of justice, as the order dated 16-12-2008 has been passed against the petitioners Nos. 1 and 4 without hearing them, we set aside the impugned order dated 16-12-2008 to the extent of petitioners Nos. 1 and 4 only and direct that the Border Area Committee shall hear the petitioners Nos. 1 and 4 and after providing them necessary opportunity of hearing, decide the case afresh in accordance with law expeditiously. The petitioners Nos. 1 and 4 shall appear before the Border Area Committee on 18.5.2010 without any further notice.
4. This writ petition stands disposed of with no orders as to costs.