' Facts necessary for the disposal of this constitutional petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner who is a claimant displaced person from the State of Jammu and Kashmir was given temporary allotment of 115 Kanals and 2 Marlas of land (described in para. 1 of the petition) in village Dinga, Tehsil Kharian, District Gujrat on 15-5-1959. Possession of this land was also delivered to him. Out of the afore-mentioned land, petitioner claims to have been confirmed land measuring 65 Kanals and 7 Marlas (fully described in para. 3 of the petition) at Khata No. 15 of R.L. II of the aforesaid village. He further claims that the land permanently confirmed to him was incorporated in the Jamabandis for the years 1972-73 and 1976-77 (Annexures 'C' and 'D' with the writ petition).
Petitioner's grievance is that the respondent No. 2, without any notice or hearing, has included the land in dispute in the list of available lands which are to be disposed of through auction.
2. Respondent No. 1 has submitted the report and parawise comments wherein it is admitted that the land measuring 65 Kanals and 7 Marlas "temporarily allotted to the petitioner stands proposed to him vide RL-II No. 15/5". It is, however, denied that the said land was confirmed to the petitioner.
Position taken by the officer in his report is that the land in dispute being situated in the urban limits of Dinga Town Committee was excluded from the allotment against the rural claim and "the petitioner being claimant of rural area was not eligible for allotment of urban land." As regards the Jamabandis relied upon by the petitioner, it is stated in the report that "the entries made in the Annexures 'C' and 'D' about permanent allotment are without any lawful authority." It was further stated in the report that "as the land in question was not confirmed in favour of the petitioner it was rightly considered to be disposed of by public auction as required by Notification No. 1697-73/ 1567-R(L), dated 16-5-1973.
' Notwithstanding the afore-mentioned position taken in the report and parawise comments denying the confirmation of the land in dispute to the petitioner, the officer has stated in his report "had the petitioner appeared before me and produced proof of confirmation of the land in his favour his case would have been considered for deletion of the land from the list meant for auction." Similar observation is made in the parawise comments also.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record including the report and parawise comments submitted by respondent No.
1. Although it is denied by the respondent No. 1 that the land in dispute was ever confirmed to the petitioner but as regards the entries in the Jamabandis (Annexures 'C' and 'D' with the writ petition), it has just been stated in the report that the entries about the permanent allotment are without lawful authority. In the Jamabandis, I find that for some of the land, petitioner is shown 'Malik Qabza' and for some other land as 'Temporary Permanent Allottee'. Be that as it may, the fact remains and it has not been denied even by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity of hearing before the impugned action of including the land in dispute in the Auction List was taken. Thus without going into the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner who was atleast shown as 'Malik Qabza' and/or 'Temporary Permanent Allottee' of the land in dispute in the Jamabandis from 1972 A onwards was entitled to a notice and hearing before the impugned action was taken against him. As observed above, even the respondent No 1 has stated in his repot and parawise comments that if the petitioner had appeared before him and produced proof of confirmation of the land in his favour, his case would have been considered for deletion of the land from the Auction List.
' In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition is allowed and the impugned action taken by the respondent No. 2 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It shall, however, be open to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and/or the concerned authorities to pass fresh orders in respect of the land in dispute after notice to the petitioner and after giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard. There shall, however, be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.