This writ petition has been directed against the order of the Chairman Mirpur Development Authority dated 21st December, 1975 and that of Revising Authority dated 3rd June, 1980.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted plot No. 82-A, situated in Sector B- 4, Mirpur, on l2th September, 1971 under an Act known as '`New Mirpur Town (Allotment of Land) Act of. 1964 (hereinafter shall be called Act). According to the case of the petitioner, he deposited the full price of the plot, obtained possession of the same and also submitted a plan of construction and paid a fee of Rs.20 under receipt No. 19124 ; the photostat copies of. The various documents, in support of the aforesaid assertions, have been placed on the record. It is further contended that an appeal against the said allotment was preferred by Sabir Ansari, respondent No. 4. And others after the expiry of period of limitation prescribed under law. The said appeal was pending before the appellate authority, constituted under the aforesaid Act when the appellate authority stood abolished due to the repeal of the aforesaid Act and a new enactment known as "The Mirpur Development Authority Ordinance, 1974" was promulgated (hereinafter shall be called Ordinance).
Whereby the Chairman of Mirpur Development Authority was empowered to dispose of the appeals which were pending before the previous appellate authority, under the Act. The Chairman, Mirpur Development Authority, without issuing notice to the petitioner and without considering the merits of the case, passed a telegraphic order on 21st December, 1975 whereby he reserved the plot in question for the construction of a library. The impugned order doe's not contain the discussion on the merits of the case, nor it shows that allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner submitted a review petition before the Chairman, Mirpur Development Authority but later on, he was told that the said review petition was not traceable and he was required by the then Chairman of Mirpur Development Authority to file a copy of the said review petition which was accordingly done on 1st March, 1976. Meanwhile, amend--ment was brought in section 38 of the Ordinance, which empowered the Chairman Mirpur Development Authority to revise the previous orders made by the Allotment Committee or the Authority. Consequently, the petitioner made an application before the Chairman Mirpur Development Authority, seeking revision of the order, dated 21st December, 1975. The said application was still pending, when a Revising Authority was constituted and power of revision and appeals etc,, were vested in the said authority under section 48 (4) (ii) of the Ordinance. But that application was disposed of by the Revising Authority, without giving any notice to the petitioner and without affording him an opportunity of hearing.
3. In the written statement, the non-petitioners have defended the impugned orders and have contended that the plot in question was rightly reserved for the construction of public library and school etc.
4. I have heard the arguments and gone through the file. As has been already pointed out, the petitioner has a grievance against the orders of the Chairman Mirpur Development Authority dated 21st December, 1975 and that of Revising Authority dated 3rd June, 1980. So far as the order dated 21st December, 1975 is concerned, that cannot b;, regarded as a valid order because that was passed without hearing the petitioner. Moreover, the order is also telegraphic one and it merely stipulates that plot in question was reserved for construction of library. The rights of the allottee who had deposited the price of the plot, taken the possession and had also submitted a construction plan, under Rules, had not, at all, been adverted to. An order which does not deal with the merits of a case and does not indicate that it was passed after applying mind to the relevant facts and merits of the case, cannot be termed as a valid order, at all. Such an order, being contrary to the norms of justice, would be deemed to be without jurisdiction. An order, whether it is passed by a judicial tribunal or quasi-judicial tribunal or even by an executive authority, must indicate that it was passed after considering all the relevant facts and respective claims of the parties. An arbitrary exercise of jurisdic--tion, in flagrant disregard of law and principles of natural justice, is tantamount to denial of justice. Therefore, the impugned order dated 21st December, 1975 is void and of no legal consequence.
5. Coming to the order passed by Revising Authority, it may be poin--ted out that-ia-#at order, it has been recorded that `Mukhtar' of the allottee i.e. The petitioner had absented himself despite service. A photostat copy of the notice issued to the petitioner has been placed on the record. On the back of the said copy, it has been reported by the process server that service, has been effected on the petitioner. The title of the proceed--ings as mentioned in the notice is "Muhammad Sabir v. Ch. Saddar Din". It means that according to the report of process server, the notice was served on Muhammad Sabir and not on Saddar Din, petitioner. Because, petitioner has been mentioned in the notice as non-applicant. No copy or any other document has been brought on the record. Showing that any. Mukhtar for the petitioner was ever served by the Revising Authority.
Under these circumstances, I have no doubt in my mind that the . Petitioner was not served with a notice before passing the impugned order dated 3rd June, 1980 forming Annexure `F' to the petition.
It is a legal right a of a party to the proceedings to be heard whether such an authority happens to be executive, judicial or a quasi-judicial authority, unless the right of hearing has been taken away by a statutory provision.
6. In the light of what has been stated above, I accept the writ peti--tion and hold that the impugned orders dated 21st December, 1975 and 3rd June, 1980 passed by the Chairman Mirpur Development Authority and by Revising Authority respectively, are void as being violative of C principle of natural justice. I also issue a writ of mandamus against non petitioner No. 1 to decide afresh, the appeal filed by non-petitioner No. 4 and others which culminated in impugned order dated 1st December, 1975 and the review application dated 9th September, 1979 filed by the petitioner, after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing.