This constitutional petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16-2-1974 passed by respondent No. 8 whereby the allotment of the land bearing S. Nos. 77, 78, 79 and 82 of Deh Dabro taluka Shahdadpur in favour of the petitioners was cancelled.
2. The admitted facts briefly stated are that the petitioners who were the displaced persons and had verified claims for agricultural land were proposed an evacuee land for allotment in Deb Dabro, taluka Shabdadpur, and consequently it was allotted to them on 1-10-1969. Previously, it was allotted to respondent No. 1 but was subsequently cancelled as the respon--dent No. I was allotted some other land in lieu thereof. The petitioners were handed over the possession of the land in question vide mashirnama dated 19-10-1969 and they have been enjoying the peaceful possession of the same. The land was finally confirmed and they were also issued Final Clearance Certificate by the Rehabilitation Authorities on 26-I1-1973. The record-of-rights was also mutated in favour of the petitioners on 5-12-1973 and such entries were made in their favour on 14-12-1973. On 22-2- 1974, the petitioners came to know that the respondent No. 8 has cancelled their allotment in their absence without any notice or intimation to them on 16-2-1974. They, therefore, have come in this petition as stated above.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Abdul Naseer Khan for the petitioners and Mr. Matloob Hasan Siddiqui for respondents Nos. 2 to 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset has contended that before cancelling the allotment of the petitioners the respon--dent No. 8 neither issued any notice to them nor he gave them an opportunity of being heard with the result that the impugned order dated 16-2-1974 via Annexure 'F' passed by him is without lawful authority, and of no legal effect. The impugned order vide Annexure 'F' itself is very clear to the effect that no notice was issued to the petitioners before their allotment of land was cancelled. It is contended that the impugned order was passed on the report o the Mukhtiarkar in consequence ofthe noting from the office. Mr. Matloob Hasan Siddiqui for respondents Nos. 2 to 7 has very frankly conceded that theimpugned order on the face of it does not disclose that before the cancellation of the allotment of land of the petitioners they were issued any notice. He has also failed to point out any other material on the record that any such notice was issued to the petitioners, before the order of cancellation was passed. He is therefore clear that no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioners. Accordingly, the surreptitious manner in which the allotment of the petitioners in this case was cancelled behind their back and giving them no opportunity of being heard clearly suggests that the cancella--tion was procured in an underhand manner. Obviously, therefore the principles of natural justice have been violated.
4. Consequently, the impugned order passed by respondent No. 8 is clearly without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petition is therefore, allowed with no order as to costs.