' CH. NAEEM MASOOD, J.- Through this writ petition following relief has been sought:- "...That the executive letter dated 24-9-97 passed by respondent No,1 (impugned herein) Annex-H be declared as void, illegal, liable to be quashed qua the rights of the petitioner. The petitioner be declared as owner of the land in dispute vide adjustment order dated 20-7-65, passed by respondent No,5 with further pray that respondent No,6 has no concern whatsoever to the right of the land in question."
2. Precisely the facts as enunciated in the writ petition are that the petitioner purchased 16-Kanals of land through Mutation No,461 from one Ghulam Hussain in the year 1943, hence onward the petitioner remained in possession thereof till vide judicial order dated 20-7-1965 passed by the Colonization Officer/ respondent No,5. The land in question was adjusted in favour of the petitioner under Thal Development Act. That subsequent to that because of the non-implementation of the order dated 20-7-1965, passed by respondent No,5, the petitioner moved an application to, the authority whereon the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner reported in favour of the petitioner. That 'ultimately the well-reasoned reports of the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner dated 16-12-1996 and 16-4-1997 respectively were not considered by respondent No,1 and impugned executive order was passed A on 24-9-1997 to resume the land in question from the petitioner.
3. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is nullity in the eye of law as the same has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further contended that an executive order of respondent No,1 could not bypass the judicial order passed by the respondent No,5.
4. The learned Assistant Advocate General has defended the impugned order by submitting that the case has been exhaustively seen by the highest revenue authority on colony side and, therefore, it cannot be challenged before this Court.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, learned Assistant Advocate General Punjab and perused the record.
6. I am supposed to answer certain propositions of law which arise out of the case in question.
(i) Whether the impugned order is a speaking order?
I have no doubt in my mind that the impugned order does not meet with the requirements laid down by the Honourable apex Court in various judgments that the order should be a speaking one which should contain the reasons for the conclusion arrived at by the authority. In the present case I do not find any reason, therefore, the order impugned is not speaking order.
(ii) Whether it meets the partem"?
I have the considered view that it was a case which needed a thorough probe. The petitioner has been condemned unheard, therefore, the principle of natural justice that no body should be condemned unheard has been violated, rendering the impugned order to be without lawful authority.
(iii) Whether the controversial facts have been resolved by respondent No,1?
My answer to this query is that the case is full of controversial facts and the law applicable thereto.
The learned Member Board of Revenue/ respondent No,1 has failed to make a proper scrutiny of the case which B has remained pending for the last about four decades.
(iv) Whether the judicial order dated 20-7-1965 of the Colonization Officer, could be set at naught an executive order?
The simple answer to proposition is that not a s word has been written on aspect of the case.
7. In the light of my above observation, I have no hesitation in my mind that the impugned order is not sustainable under the law.
8. In sequel thereof the impugned executive order dated 24-9-1997 issued by the learned respondent No,1 is declared to be without lawful authority and without jurisdiction.
9. Resultantly, the case is remanded to respondent No,1 with the direction to fix the case on judicial side and decide the case after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties.
10. Orders accordingly.