' By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order communicated to him by memo. No,SCK/L/MLR- 86/691/72/312, dated 27-1-1972 rejecting his application for transfer of Survey Nos. 50, 62 to 72, situated in Bhasti Amri, Taluka Karachi against the verified claim of the petitioner for agricultural land.
2. It is contended by the petitioner that the aforesaid order was passed by the authorities without hearing him and without holding any enquiry into his entitlement. The order communicated to the petitioner by the authorised Settlement Commissioner South Zone, Karachi in the form of cyclostyle circular in which the following words are written in handwriting: "(vi) The property is reported to be not in your possession."
' Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is overwhelming documentary evidence to show that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of land in dispute and, therefore, it is contended that he was entitled to transfer under paragraph 4 of the Regulation 86 which was promulgated on 10th August, 1971. To support his contention the petitioner has referred to the following documents: -
(1) Order dated 26th September, 1964 passed by Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner (South) Karachi demanding rent in respect of survey numbers in dispute.
(2) Copy of challan showing payment of a sum of Rs,685.50 towards rent of the survey number in dispute.
(3) Copy of order of Additional Settlement Commissioner (South) Karachi, dated 10-4-1967 determining his entitlement in respect of the land against his claim.
(4) Order of Assistant Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar and Assistant Settlement Commissioner, dated 12-5-1971, demanding lease money for 23 years on account of possession of the petitioner over the suit land.
' The documents filed by the petitioner in support of his contention that he was in unauthorised possession appears to have been issued by the Settlement Authorities from the period from 1964 to 1971 but these documents were apparently not examined by the authorities while rejecting the application of the petitioner. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, learned counsel for official respondents contends that the qusetion of payment of rent in respect of these lands did not arise as these Survey Nos. Were declared as building site in the year 1966. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the documents relating to alleged recovery of rent in respect of these lands appear to be manoeuvred. It may be mentioned here that besides the above referred documents the learned counsel for the petitioner also produced before me the original challans showing payment of rent to the Government in respect of the disputed land during the years 1968 to 1974 relating to the period from 1947 to 1974. However, as these documents were not considered by the authorities while rejecting the claim of petitioner in respect of the disputed land I refrain from expressing any opinion in this regard. As the impugned order was passed without considering the above documents which prima facie proved possession of petitioner over the land in dispute, I accept this petition and declare the order dated 27-1-1972 passed by respondent No,2 as without lawful authority. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of above observations after affording him opportunity of hearing and producing evidence, in support of his claim. In the circumstances of the case I will make no order as to costs.