MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J. - This judgment shall decide Writ Petition No. 9151-08 and Writ Petition No, 9152- OS as a common question is involved.
2. According to the contents of these writ petitions . Abdul Aziz purchased 1 kanal and 14 rmarlas of land from on! Muhammad Siddique who was co-owner in the joint Khula. The land sold was comprised in Khasras Nos. 218 (1 xar al, 5 marlas) and 132 (9-marlas). The plots Nos. 769 and 77(i were exempted in his favour after paying the requisite charges and transfer letters were issued.
Abdul Aziz sold the pic Ss in favour of Salah-ud-Din who in turns sold them to the petitioner who got a building plan sanctioned. The petitioner been aggrieved of Memo. Annexure-VII dated 7.7.2008 informing that the plots have been cancelled. The respondents in writter reply have not denied the transfer of the said plots and issauance of letters and ultimate devolution upon the petitioner b / purchase. However, it has been stated that some fraud has been played, as file remained misplaced for several years. Even tampering has also been alleged.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contend that their client is bona fide purchaser and has relied upon the record of the L.D.A, itself and such a harsh order could not have been passed without giving him a chance to explain and show cause. They rely on the case of Sadiq Hussain v. L.D.A., Lahore through Director General and 2 others (PLD '1995 Lahore 339). Learned counsel for L.D.A, reiterates the contents of the reply.
4. I have gone through the said pleadings of the parties and several documents appended with these writ petitions. One thing is certain that the impugned order has been passed without even notice to the petitioner in these cases. So far as the matter of exemption is concerned, learned counsel draw my attention to a judgment dated 19.3.2003 of this Court of Writ Petition aslo.
7136/1993 to urge that a sale made to subsequent purchaser was held to be valid by this Court on the well-settled principle that while adjusting a sale in joint Khata it is not the share in a particular Khasra number which is to be considered rather share in the entire joint holding vis-a-vis the area of the Khasra number is to considered. The judgment is also in the' notice of respondent L.D.A., as is evident from its reply, In afore-noted state of affairs both the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders cancelling Plots Nos. 770 and 769, Block J-2, Johar Town, Lahore (AnneXure-VII) into both the writ petitions are set aside. The respondents shall serve a requisite notice upon the petitioner stating the grounds for cancellation. Sufficient time will be given to the petitioners to file reply and the matter shall be decided after an opportunity of hearing wherein the petitioner shall be allowed to produce such document as are necessary. No order as to costs.
A copy of this judgment be immediately remitted to respondent No. 1 by the office.