SH. AZMAT SAEED, J. --- Through this judgment, it is proposed to dispose of Writ Petition No. 64- R/2009 and Writ Petition No. 79-R/2009, both directed against the order dated 9.2.2009 passed by respondent No. 1.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the !Is at hand are that apparently one Shaheen Jadoon made an application to the Chief Secretary of the Punjab complaining that her case in respect of a plot of land situated in New Garden Town, Lahore was pending before the CMIT which was not being decided due to non-veritication of her file. The matter was eventually referred to respondent No. 1, who, vide the order impugned, not only gave a finding regarding the claim of the said Shaheen Jadoon but also cancelled the allotments/PTDs in respect of a large piece of land in Garden Town. The petitioners in- the instant Constitutional petitions claimed to be the owners of the parts and parcel of the said land on account of being successors-in-interest of the original allottees, in whose favour the PTDs in question had been issued.
3. The counsels for the petitioners have challenged the impugned order primarily on three counts: firstly, that the said order, which adversely affects the rights of the petitioners, has been passed without notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners; secondly, the matter of the allotment/transfer of the land in question was a past and closed transaction; hence not open to question; and thirdly, respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction whatsoever to pass the impugned order, especially as there was no pending proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-department has controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. It is further added that the land in question was originally an evacuee land/property and its allotments and transfers had been obtained through fraud and, therefore, respondent No. 1, as the Chief Settlement Commissioner, was authorized to pass the order impugned.
5. Counsels for the parties have been he and and record, appended with these petitions, has been perused.
6. It is self-evident from the record that the impugned order has been passed without notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other persons, whose proprietary rights have been affected.
Obviously, in such circumstances, the impugned order, passed in violation of the principle of natural justice, is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the impugned order dated 9.2.2009 is hereby set aside. Should respondent No. 1 wish to proceed further in the matter, notices must necessarily be issued to any and all persons likely to be affected by such proceedings or eventual order and fair opportunity of hearing must be afforded. In such an eventuality, any all objections available in law including the objection regarding the jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 in this behalf may be raised. Consequently, these writ petitions are accepted with the above observations. .