This is a petition under section 561-A, Cr. P.C. By Muhammad Tufail alias Faqir Muhammad, petitioner, for the quashment of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Nankana Sahib, dated 26-5-1986 ordering the attachment of eleven Acres of land in village Thabul, Police Station Mangtanwala.
2. The dispute in the case relates to a gift deed executed by late Muhammad Amin, father of Muhammad Tufail, petitioner, and Muhammad Zubair, Muhammad Idris and Mst. Irshad Begum, respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and the husband of Mst. Mehraj Hibi, respondent No. 5, in favour of Muhammad Zubair and Mist. Irshed Begum, respondents, gifting them eleven Acres of land (including a garden) in village Thabul. There has been cross litigation between the parties in respect of this gift-deed and there appear to be a number of interlocutory orders passed by the Civil Court in that respect, in favour of both the opposing parties. On 7-11-1984, Altaf Hussain, A.S.1.
Police Station Mangtanwala, submitted a report under section 145, Cr.P.C. Calling attention to apprehend breach of peace between Muhammad Tufail, petitioner, and Muhammad Zubair, respondent No. 2, over the said land and requesting for the attachment of the property. In the said report it was also mentioned that the parties had resorted to firing, in order to stake their possession over the said land, in respect of which two criminal cases had been instituted and proceedings under section 107/151, Cr.P.C. Had also been taken. The said application came up for hearing before the Assistant Commissioner, Nankana Sahib, who summoned both the parties. On 7-5-1985, both the parties appeared before him who were directed to submit their written statements and other documents on 26-5-1985. On the said date, no written statements were filed by both the contending parties, other than an application by Muhammad Zubair, respondent No. 2, for the early disposal of the case. After hearing the arguments, the Assistant Commissioner ordered attachment of the land in dispute. Being aggrieved by the said order, Muhammad Tufail, petitioner, filed a quashment petition in the High Court which is before me for disposal.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents and the State and have also perused the record. It appears that neither of the parties filed their written-- statements before the Assistant Commissioner, but before me a large number of documents have been referred to in support of their respective claims. These documents include copies of plaints, written Statements and interlocutory orders passed by the Civil Courts thereon. Since these important documents were not filed before the Assistant Commissioner, they were not referred to by him in his order, dated 26-5-1985. Some of the documents appear to have a bearing on the case, as they regulate possession regarding the land (including the garden) in dispute, which is in village Thabul. In fairness to the Assistant Commissioner who passed the order, both the learned counsel for the parties desire that the matter be remanded back to the learned Assistant Commissioner for de novo decision in the matter. This request is in good taste. Even otherwise, it appears that the Assistant Commis--sioner acted in haste. On 7-5-1985 both the parties were present before him for the first time and he directed them to file their written-statements and documents on 26-5-1985. On the said date, the written statements and documents were not filed but the Assistant Commissioner proceeded with the case. He should have given a fair opportunity to the parties to produce their written statements and documents, so as to be able to appreciate the factual aspects of the case. The hasty decision not being in conformity with the true facts of the case, deserves to be set aside.
4. I, therefore, accept this petition, set aside the impugned order of the Assistant Commissioner, Nankana Sahib, dated 26-5-1985 and remand the case to him with the direction that .Ire should receive the written statements and all such documents which the parties may desire to file before him, and after hearing their arguments he should decided the matter afresh, in accordance with law. The parties shah appear before the Assistant Commissioner, Nankana Sahib, on 25-1-1986.