1. Sardar Muhammad Sadiq Khan, J.--This appeal, with leave of the Court is addressed against the consolidated judgment of the High Court, passed in two separate Writ Petitions No, 16/2006 and 4/2008 respectively, whereby the writ petition filed by Mst. Ameer Begum, Respondent No, 2 herein, is accepted while the writ petition filed by the present appellant, is dismissed.
2. Brief facts forming the background of the instant appeal are that the land comprising Khasra No, 659-min, measuring 1 kanal and 1 marla, situated in village Balyah, Tehsil and District Kotli was allotted to Mst. Ameer Begum, Respondent No, 2 herein, under the allotment permit Bearing No, 24/RA/77 dated 2.1.1977. The Proprietary Rights Transfer Order (hereinafter to be referred as PRTO) was granted .by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, to Respondent No, 2 of the same piece of land on 20.2.1991. Respondent No, 2 spent most of her life abroad with her husband. In her absence, the appellant, by taking undue advantage, forcibly occupied the land measuring 2 marlas 3 sarsais, out of the land measuring 1 kanal and 1 marla, allotted to Respondent No,
2. Thereafter, the appellant manoeuvred forged and fabricated documents i.e an agreement and affidavit, on the basis of which, the appellant, firstly succeeded to get cancellation of the allotment of occupied piece of land through an order dated 12.12.1981, issued from the office of Secretary Rehabilitation; secondly, the allotment order dated 6.2.1982 in his favour and finally P.R.T.O of the land in dispute on 14.2.1987. All these proceedings were allegedly made by the brother of the appellant on his behalf in absence of Respondent No,
2. Both the parties, challenged the allotment order and PRTO issued to each other through separate review petitions before the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The learned Custodian dismissed the review petition filed by Respondent No, 2 and accepted the review petition filed by appellant herein vide order dated 15.6.2004.
2. 3.Respondent No, 2, filed a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the order of the Custodian dated 15.6.2004. The High Court, vide order dated 26.1.2006, vacated the order of the Custodian and remanded the case to the Custodian with the mutual consent of the parties with the direction to decide the controversy after considering the evidence of the parties. The learned Custodian considered the evidence on record and through the order dated 21.11.2006, cancelled the allotment and PRTO made in favour of appellant as well as Respondent No, 2 with a direction to the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner Kotli to process the application of the appellant, Bashir Hussain, for allotment according to rules and regulations. It was further declared by the Custodian that if Respondent No, 2, Mst. Ameer Begum is aggrieved, she may also approach the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner Roth. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of Custodian dated 21.11.2006, the appellant and Respondent No, 2 filed separate writ petitions in the High Court on identical grounds which is the second round of litigation between the parties. The learned High Court, disposed of both the writ petitions through the consolidated impugned judgment dated 17.3.2010 whereby the writ petition filed by Respondent No, 2, was accepted and writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed, hence, this appeal.
4. Syed Nazir Hussain Shah Kazmi Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant, after stating brief facts of the case, argued that Mst Ameer Begum Respondent No, 2, executed an agreement in favour of the appellant whereby she abandoned her rights to the extent of 2 marlas and 3 sarsais out of the land measuring 1 kanal and 1 marla allotted to her. He further submitted that Respondent No, 2 also executed an affidavit in favour of the appellant, on the basis of which, out of the land comprising Survey No, 659-min measuring 1 kanal & 1 marla, the land measuring, 2 marla and 3 sarsais, was cancelled from the name of allottee, Mst. Amir Begum. He further submitted that the land in question is under the possession of appellant and he has made improvements on it, thus, legally vested rights have been accrued to him. The allotment of appellant is not a subsequent allotment and the His Court has ignored the fact that the allotment of Respondent No, 2 was cancelled through Government notification in the light of recommendations of the Rehabilitation Authorities. He further stated that since Respondent No, 2 has surrendered her allotment, therefore, the High Court has failed to consider the documents placed on record, hence, the appeal merits acceptance. He placed reliance upon the cases titled Fair Akbar v. Mst. Nasim Begum & 8 others [2003 SCR 240], Sardar Muhammad Hanif Khan & another v. Raja Altaf Hussain Khan Rathore & another, [2000 SCR 464], Bashir Ahmed Khan v. Custodian Evacuee Property AJK Muzaffarabad & 2 others [PLD 1987 SC (AJ&K) 118], and Sher Ahmed & 4 others v. Custodian Evacuee Property & another, [PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 78].
3. 5.While controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, Raja Amjad Ali Khan Advocate, the learned counsel for Respondent No, 2, submitted that the allotment in favour of Mst.
4. Amir Begum was made by the competent authority on 2.1.1977 and PRTO was issued in her favour on 20.2.1991, therefore, her allotment had attained finality and could not be cancelled. He further argued that the illegal notification for cancellation of allotment has been issued without hearing Respondent No, 2 which is clear violation of the principles of natural justice. All the proceedings are based on forged and fake documents prepared by the brother of the appellant with the connivance of Rehabilitation Authorities. He further contended that the allotment in favour of the appellant made on 6.2.1982 and PRTO issued on 14.2.1987 are illegal. The learned counsel argued that in presence of first allotment, subsequent allotment cannot be made. All the superior Courts of Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir, have unanimously held that without cancelling the first allotment, subsequent allotment is illegal in the eye of law. The learned counsel also pressed into service that when the fabricated and fake agreement and affidavit were prepared by the appellant, Respondent No, 2 was abroad, residing with her husband. Neither the affidavit/stamp paper were purchased by Respondent No, 2 nor signed by her. He submitted that the order of cancellation of allotment bears no signatures of any authority. Even the signature on the notification for subsequent allotment, issued by the concerned authority, is not proved to be correct as such. He finally submitted that the impugned order of the High Court is passed quite in accordance with law and statutory provisions, therefore, the same may be maintained. He referred to and relied upon the cases, titled Manzoor Ahmed & another v. Assadullah & others [PLD 1981 AJK 21], Saif Ali v. Custodian Evacuee Property & others, [1993 SCR 39], Muhammad Afsar Khan & 3 others v. Samundar Khan & 3 others [1997 SCR 311] and Azmatullah & another v. Ali Bahadur & others [1996. PSC (SC) AJ&K 13C].
5. 6.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, taken into consideration the points canvassed by them and examined the record made available with due care.
6. 7.A perusal of record reveals that the land bearing Khasra No, 659-min, measuring 1 kanal & 1 marla, situated in village Balyah, Kotli was allotted to Mst. Ameer Begum, Respondent No, 2 vide allotment Permit No, 24/RA/77 dated 2.1.1977. The PRTO of the land was also granted to her by the Custodian of Evacuee Property on 20.2.1991. After getting allotment, she went abroad with her husband when in her absence, the appellant forcibly occupied her shop and thereafter, on the basis of forged documents, applied for allotment of the said shop in his favour. Accordingly the same was allotted in favour of appellant on 6.2.1982 and PRTO was also issued on 14.2.1987. The appellant and Respondent No, 2 filed separate review petitions before the Custodian Evacuee Property on 1.9.2000 and 23.1.2001 for cancellation of each other's allotment and PRTO. The review petition filed by Respondent No, 2 was dismissed whereas the review petition filed by the appellant was accepted. Respondent No, 2 challenged the order of Custodian through a writ petition in the High Court. The learned High Court, vide its judgment and order dated 26.1.2006 vacated the order of the Custodian and remanded the case to the Custodian with the direction to decide the controversy after appreciating the evidence of the parties. The learned Custodian, after considering the evidence on record, vide order dated 21.11.2006, cancelled the allotment made in favour of the appellant regarding the land measuring 2 marlas & 3 sarsais and directed the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner Kotli to revisit the case of appellant. The Respondent No, 2, was also directed to approach the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner Kotli, if aggrieved. Mst.
7. Ameer Begum Respondent No, 2 challenged the order of Custodian dated 21.11.2006, through writ petition in the High Court whereas the appellant Bashir Hussain also filed writ petition in the High Court on the identical grounds. The learned Judge in the High Court, while accepting the writ petition filed by Respondent No, 2 vacated the order recorded by the learned custodian of Evacuee Property, mainly on the ground that the agreement as well as affidavit allegedly executed on behalf of Mst. Ameer Begum, available on record, has not been proved to be executed as such. It is further observed by the High Court that Mst. Ameer Eegum, has never abandoned her rights.
8. Another ground prevailed in the High Court for vacation of the order of Custodian is that the Government, notification dated 12.12.1981, does not bear the signatures of issuing authority.
9. 8.It may be stated here that at the time when the alleged fake documents regarding surrender of allotment by Respondent No, 2 were prepared by the appellant, the Respondent No, 2 was abroad with her husband. It reveals from the perusal of record, that all the proceedings for cancellation of allotment of Respondent No, 2 and making subsequent allotment in favour of appellant, have been initiated in absence of Respondent No, 2 which is clear violation of statutory provisions. It is settled that under the provisions of Section 18(7) of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), the Government is empowered to cancel the allotment of Evacuee Property where it is proved to the satisfaction of Government, on the basis of an inquiry made by Rehabilitation Authority that the allottee has abandoned or has consented for cancellation of the allotment. Under Section 18-B(1)(c) of the Act, the Custodian is also empowered to cancel any allotment where it has been found that the allotment has been made in violation of law or is without jurisdiction. In the instant case, there is nothing on the record from which it could be ascertained that Respondent No, 2 ever surrendered or abandoned her allotment. Thus, the cancellation of her allotment is nullity in the eye of law.
10. 9.The next question which needs consideration is regarding validity of documents regarding surrender of allotment by Respondent No,
2. As for the question pertaining to validity of the documents i.e agreement and affidavit etc. is concerned, the learned Custodian, while discussing both the documents, in his order dated 21.11.2006, clearly declared that both the documents were prepared in absence of Respondent No,
2. This observation of the Custodian was not challenged by the appellant before the High Court in writ petition. It is settled law that if a point is not raised in the High Court, the same cannot be raised in appeal before this Court. Therefore, the learned High Court has rightly concluded that the agreement as well as affidavit available with the file have not been executed by Respondent No, 2 in favour of appellant.
11. 10.So for the argument regarding surrender of allotment by Respondent No, 2 is concerned, we have minutely perused the alleged agreement of surrender, affidavit submitted in this regard and the notification for cancellation of allotment of Mst. Ameer Begum, on the basis of these documents. It appears from perusal of these documents that, neither the statement regarding surrender or abandonment of allotment by Respondent No, 2 is recorded by any of the Rehabilitation Authorities nor she appeared before the Rehabilitation Authorities in this respect. It is celebrated principle that in case of surrender or abandonment of allotment, the person, who is alleged to have surrendered, statement of such person must be recorded, moreover, the presence of first allotee at the time of surrender and signature on the documents relating to surrender are necessary whereas the documents attached with the file shows that no statement regarding surrender has been recorded by Respondent No, 2 for surrender of allotment in favour of appellant.
12. Even, if for the sake of argument, the signatures on the document of surrender are proved, even then she must have been heard before issuing the notification for cancellation of allotment but there is nothing on record to prove that she was heard before issuing the notification for cancellation of allotment.
13. 11.Another question which needs consideration is that during perusal of interlocutory orders of this Court, it transpired that on 6.8.2010, the Respondents No, 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were proceeded ex-parte, which shows lake of interest on behalf of Rehabilitation Authorities as well as Custodian Evacuee Property in contesting the appeal.
14. 12.Now we advert to the case law referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant, brief survey of which reads as under: In the case titled Faiz Akbar u. Mst. Nasim Begum & others, [2003 SCR 240], it has been observed by this Court that the party has himself abandoned his right who was earlier served notice on the back of which he clearly mentioned that "I received your order, I have no objection in this matter"
15. (interpretation is ours). Later on, after conducting inquiry by the Custodian, the son of deceased was summoned, who being the sole witness, recorded his statement through which he affirmed the statement of his deceased father. Whereas in the present case, neither Respondent No, 2 was summoned by the Rehabilitation Authorities nor she appeared personally for volunteer surrender of allotment, before any Authority or Court of law and got her statement recorded, rather entire proceedings for cancellation of first allotment permit, and making subsequent allotment, are made in her absence. Hence, this case does not at all help the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant.
16. In the case titled Sardar Muhammad Hanif Khan & another v. Raja Altaf Hussain Khan Rathore & another, [2000 SCR 464], the documents regarding surrender or abandonment are obviously proved such as registered sale-deed and affidavit duly executed which himself presented by the first allottee and got recorded his statement before the authority. Hence, surrender/abandonment is clearly proved by overwhelming and cogent evidence. This authority is also of no help to the appellant.
17. In another pronouncement of the apex Court led Bashir Ahmed Khan v. Custodian of Evacuee Property AJ&K Muzaffarabad & 2 others, [PLD 1987 SC (AJ&K) 1181, a detailed survey of points relating to the cancellation of first allotment and subsequent allotment on the basis of surrender or abandonment or any other reason is numerated by this Court, which reads as under: ".... The question that now, therefore, needs resolution on is as to whether an evacuee property when once allotted in absence of an express order of cancellation of that allotment could not under any circumstances be re-allotted by the Rehabilitation Authority.
18. As a principle, it is correct that second allotment, without cancellation of the allotment already existing, would not be valid. We have no quarrel with the proposition as such The object behind this principle that no second allotment could legally be made without cancelling the already existing one is indeed just and primarily solitary in spirit. It is to safeguard to e interest of first allotee. By holding that the existing allotment just first be cancelled really means cancellation in accordance with law which in turn means that before depriving some one of his allotment he must first be heard. But the question that now needs determination, however, is as to what would be the position if an allottee decides to relinquish his allotment, appears before the Rehabilitation Authority and the surrenders his allotment rights or in a case where terms of allotment are found to have been violated by the allottee or he has become unsuitable to hold the allotment. Would the retention of his allotment rights still be insisted upon the unwilling allottee who no longer wants to retain those?, The rule in such circumstances, in our view, would have no relevancy or application. The Rehabilitation Authorities would then be free to deal with the property in any lawful manner, the right to re-allot included.
19. The Government may, as provided under the provisions contained in sub-section (7) of Section 18 of the administration of Evacuee Property Act, cancel the allotment which when found to have abandoned or surrendered but then in no way does it mean that in such a case of surrender, abandonment or where the terms and conditions of allotment have been violated or the allottee has made himself unsuitable to hold the allotment, the property in absence of an express order of cancellation of first allotment could not be taken over or allotted by the Rehabilitation Authorities.
20. There is no prohibition against such a course under any of the provisions contained in the Rehabilitation Act or Administration of Evacuee Property Act. The rule, in our view is neither absolute nor is to be applied rigidly in every case.
21. While construing sub-section (7) of Section 18 of the Act, regard must also be had to the other relevant provisions contained in the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and the Rehabilitation Act e.g. clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Rehabilitation Act and sub-section (6) of Section 18 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. In order to have a proper perception of the point a reference to these is, therefore, necessary which are reproduced as:-- "7. (1)
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by the proceedings of sub-section but subject to the provisions of this Act, a Rehabilitation Authority may:-- (a)
22. (b)eject summarily with the use of such force as may be necessary any person in possession of any abandoned land, building, business or undertaking whose possession thereof has not been authorized by the Rehabilitation Authority, or, to whom such land, building, business or undertaking has been allotted (whether the stock-in-trade or machinery involved in the business or undertaking has been sold to him or not) but who has failed to observe any of the conditions of the allotment, or who has subsequently been found in the opinion of the Rehabilitation Authority to be an unsuitable person to hold the property so allollted. or any person in possession of any property which, after it has been allotted to him as evacuee property, has lost the character of being such property either by a declaration or by the operation of any other law for the time being in force."
23. "18(6) If any person fails to comply with the aforesaid terms and conditions, the Custodian may eject such person and take possession of the property."
24. Under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Rehabilitation Act, 1956, the Rehabilitation Authority is empowered to eject summarily with force if necessary, any unauthorized occupant of the abandoned evacuee property including the allottee who failed to observe any of the conditions of allotment order who has subsequently been found by the authority to be unsuitable for holding the allotment. Similarly the learned Custodian under sub-section (6) of Section 18 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 has power to eject an allottee who failed to observe the terms and conditions of allotment and then to take the possession of such property.
25. From perusal of the above listed provisions, it will become clear that there is no mention of word cancellation. Instead the Rehabilitation Authority or the Custodian has been empowered to eject the allottee and take possession of the property. Since there is no mention of word 'cancellation' in the above listed provisions, would it mean that in cases where on account of violation of terms and conditions of allotment or on becoming unsuitable to hold the allotment, the allotee is ejected and the possession of the property so allotted is taken over by the Custodian or the Rehabilitation Authority, the allottee so ejected would still retain his allotment rights in the property?. The answer in our view is in negative. To place such construction on sub-section (7) of Section 18 of the Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Ordinance (No CLXXVII of 1981) and on Section 7(2)(b) of the Rehabilitation Act would not only be the unreasonable and illogical but would also make the above listed provisions of the Rehabilitation Act and of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, redundant..............
13. The above cited observations are well settled and holding the field in the form of consistent practice of Judge-made law and we accordingly fortified the same, which of course does not support the case of appellant, thus, it has become crystal clear that before cancellation of first allotment and making subsequent allotment, first thing is the knowledge, appearance before the authority, statement or any valid document vide which surrender or abandonment is made. In the instant case, each and every proceeding is made in absence of Respondent No, 2 which is void ab- initio.
26. 14.Another case referred to by learned counsel for the appellant, titled Sher Ahmed & 4 others v.
27. Custodian of Evacuee Property & another [PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 78], is quite distinguishable. In this case, the point of valid and lawful cancellation as a result of surrender, abandon or exchange of property has been discussed and the same opposed the version of the learned Advocate for the appellant and supports the case of Respondent No, 2, perusal of which will evaporate the misconception born in the mind of learned Advocate for the appellant, which reads as follows:-- We have no quarrel with the proposition as such but the question which needs determination is as to what would be the position if an allottee or allottees decide to relinquish their allotment and then appear before the Rehabilitation Authority and surrender the same. If A.R.C, accepts the surrender, would it still be regarded as the property so surrendered not open to allotment. The object behind the principle that no second allotment could legally be made without cancelling the first allotment is sound and salutary in spirit. It is to safeguard the interest of first allottee. By holding that first the existing allotment ought to be cancelled really means cancellation in accordance with law which in turn means that before depriving some one of his allotment he must first be heard. But this rule will have no relevancy when a party himself appears and voluntarily surrenders his allotment to the Rehabilitation Authority. In such a situation, there remains nothing to be cancelled...."
28. (Underlining is ours)
29. It is clearly mentioned in the above pronouncement that cancellation of first allotment must be made in accordance with law which in turn means that before depriving some one of his legal right, he must first be heard. This legal course, in fact has not been adopted by the Rehabilitation Authorities in the instant case. Hence, this authority also does not support the case of the appellant on the point in issue.
30. 15.We have, besides the above referred authorities of law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, also visited the case law upon which Respondent No, 2 has placed reliance.
31. Therefore, for summary analysis, same are enumerated as under: In the case titled Manzoor Ahmed & another v. Assadullah & others [PLD 1981 AJK 21], the leaned High Court has also discussed the similar view point narrated in the above mentioned authorities of law in the following manner:.
32. The allotment, in favour of Abdul Ghaffar was even confirmed by the Custodian in the year 1961 and it was without cancellation of the same by a competent authority that second allotment was made by a Rehabilitation Authority, in favour of the petitioners which authority was not legally competent to make a second allotment in presence of the first allotment standing in the name of Abdul Ghaffar, father of Respondent No, 1 who had gone to Pakistan just to earn his livelihood leaving behind his family as was found by the learned Custodian. The going of Abdul Ghaffar to Pakistan, temporarily does not mean that the shop was abandoned by him and so it was available for allotment to the petitioners."
33. In the case titled as Sail Ali v. Custodian, Evacuee Property & others [1993 SCR 39], this. Court has clearly opined regarding valid and lawful cancellation of allotment in the following manner:-- "... Evidently, in presence of the prior allotment of the respondents, the subsequent allotment in favour of the appellant would be deemed to be nullity in the eye of law. There is no proof on the record that the allotment of the respondents was cancelled by the competent authority according to the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act, except that there is a note in the allotment register indicating that the allotment in favour of the appellant was made after cancelling the allotment of the respondents. The question as to whether the cancellation of the allotment of the respondents was made after taking necessary proceedings under the relevant law and in the knowledge of the respondents is not borne out from the record. As has already been stated, the findings of the Rehabilitation Authorities are that the allotment of the respondents was subsisting and was not cancelled by a competent authority. It may be observed that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for perpetuation of an illegal order, i,e, the order made by the Custodian in exercise of review jurisdiction. It is settled principle of writ jurisdiction that the writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in favour of a party who does not come with clean hands and seeks to perpetuate an order which is patently violative of law. The relief in exercise of writ jurisdiction is discretionary and the High Court can justifiably refuse the same if it results in injustice. Therefore the High Court rightly declined to interfere in the matter in exercise of writ jurisdiction ...."
34. A survey of above referred case law transpires that in each and every case, when the first allotment is subsisting, subs quant allotment could not be made subject to valid and lawful cancellation. While in the instant case, cancellation is invalid, illegal and without jurisdictional competence, based on forged and fake documents, hence, the above referred extract from the Supreme Court's decision fully supports the version of Respondent No, 2.
35. 16.It may be observed here that the notification for cancellation of allotment dated 12.12.1981, through which the land comprising khasra No, 659-min measuring 2 marlas 3 sarsais is shown to have been cancelled from the name of Respondent No, 2, is not having any legal backing because the notification does, not bear signatures of issuing authority as concluded by the Custodian of Evacuee Property in his judgment. For the sake of argument, if the notification dated 12.12.1981 is supposed to have been issued literally, even then Respondent No, 2 has never been heard before issuing of such notification which according to statutory provisions is void ab-initio. In our opinion, any document, without signatures, is mere piece of paper which cannot be relied upon.
36. 17.Another point which needs consideration is that amazingly, the appellant never appeared before any Rehabilitation Authority during the process of allotment nor his presence is proved during the execution of the forged and fake documents. His presence appear to have marked by his real brother, Munir Hussain which shows that all the proceedings initiated for allotment in favour of appellant are fake which cannot be maintained.
37. 18.It may be mentioned here that neither the appearance of Respondent No, 2 before the Rehabilitation Authorities, regarding surrender of allotment is proved through cogent evidence nor she has recorded any statement for abandonment of her allotment to the extent of land measuring 2 marlas and 3 sarsais. According to statutory provisions, without recording the statement of first allottee, no subsequent allotment can be made. The Rehabilitation Authorities issued the notification for cancellation of allotment in violation of express provisions of law which is not maintainable. It is settled law that no body can be condemned unheard. Whereas in the instant case, the Respondent No, 2 was abroad and all the proceedings regarding surrender were made in her absence which is clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Our this view finds support from the case titled Sardar Muhammad Aziz Khan vs. Messrs United Kashmir Flour Mills (Put) LTD.
38. [PLD 2004 SC (AJK) 1] wherein it is observed as under: "... It is a celebrated principle of law that if by an order the interest of a person is adversely affected, he is to be given a notice of hearing as the natural justice so demands, and the Principle of natural justice shall be presumed to be in every statute, unless the same is excluded by the relevant statute itself."
39. In another case, titled Karachi Development Authority v. Dawood, [1984 CLC 2080], the same view has been taken which is as under: "...The purported action of the appellants in cancelling the allotment also cannot be sustained as being against the principles of natural justice.
40. The learned counsel for the appellants admitted that to the show-cause notice, dated 18th July, 1965 (Exh. 23), the respondent submitted his explanation on 26th August, 1965 (Exh. 24) whereby he repudiated the allegations made against him and he further pointed out various factors for which K.D.A/Appellants were stated to be themselves responsible for having caused the delay. In spite of the receipt of the explanation to the show-cause notice, the appellants proceeded to cancel the allotment by their letter, dated 15th December, 1965 (Exh. 9) without affording any opportunity of being heard to the respondent. This unilateral act of the appellant/K.D.A was obviously against the well-recognized principle of natural justice".
19. In the light of the authoritative pronouncements referred to above, we have no hesitation in concluding that the notification, cancelling the allotment of Respondent No, 2 is arbitrary, issued in violation of the principle of natural justice, thus, the same has rightly been declared without lawful authority by the learned High Court.
41. For the reasons stated above, we find that the judgment of the learned High Court is quite in accordance with law and facts on record, therefore, no illegality, infirmity or irregularity has been pointed out to call interference with the same by this Court. Hence, this appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.