1. ZAKI-UD-DIN PAL, J.-This writ petition calls into question an order passed by respondent No. 1 on 1- 4-1969 vile Annex. `A' as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The impugned order reads as under:- "File regarding the ejectment of Talib Din Masih, etc., tenants from W. P. A. D. C. Seed Farm Chak No. 82/10-R, Khanewal.
2. In exercise of the powers conferred on me under section 17(3) of the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation Ordinance, 1961, I, Mr. Muhammad Javed Masud C.S.P., Sub-Divisional Magistrate exercising the powers of Magistrate 1st Class, Khanewal, do hereby order the ejectment of the following tenants from the unauthorised land mentioned against each :-
(1) Talib Din Masih son of Nathu }Rectangle
(2) Nawab Masih son of Talib Din Masih } No. 48/82.
(3) Murad son of Wahab. (Killas Nos. 1-12/2 and 13 of Rectangle No. 34/82).
(4) Allah Ditta son of Sowara (1-12 and 13 of Rect. No. 55/82, of W. P. A. D. C. Seed Farm, Khanewal.
3. Necessary police help should be given to the Farm Superintendent, Seed Farm, Khanewal to dispossess the above mentioned tenants."
4. Previous to this writ petition, petitioners along with 101 other persons filed Writ Petition 1394/65 claiming their right to purchase certain agricultural land resumed under Martial Law Regulation No. 64 which had been given to respondent No. 2 on certain conditions. The petitioners were tenants on the land in dispute before its resumption under Martial Law Regulation No. 64 and after resumption continued to cultivate the same as tenants of respondent No. 2. The order in the following words was passed by this Court on 6-5-1968 In the said writ petition.
5. "Notice.
6. Petitioners will not be ejected except in due course of law."
7. This stay order was passed on C. M. 1821/68 in Writ Petition No. 1394/65, Thereafter the petitioners filed Criminal Original No. 100/68 in the said writ petition which was dismissed in limine with the following observations on 24-5-1968:- "Mr. M. M. Saeed Beg, Advocate.
8. The writ petitions were admitted to hearing to consider the question whether the petitioners were entitled to the allotment of the land under Martial Law Regulation No. 64.
9. The petitioners have in the meanwhile attorned themselves as tenants to the Agricultural Development Corporation. Learned counsel apprehended that the respondents might eject them after they learnt that the writ petitions of the petitioners had been admitted to hearing. We, therefore, protected the petitioners against arbitrary action of the respondents and directed that they would not be ejected except in due course of law.
10. We admitted the petitions but we passed no order to disturb the existing relationship between the parties which is that of landlord and tenants. The respondents, landlords can in certain circumstances eject the tenants. We did not protect the petitioners against ejectment in all circumstances and under all conditions. What we ordered was that if respondents, landlords intended to eject the petitioners they could do so only in accordance with the provisions of the law.
11. We have no doubt that the respondents will not eject the petitioners arbitrarily and if such a course of action is adopted by them, they would take it in due regard to the law which regulates their relationship. With these remarks the petition is disposed of.
12. Order dasti on payment."
13. According to the petitioners both the orders as mentioned above were conveyed to respondent No. 2 and its functionaries. It is contended that functionaries of respondent No. 2 at the Seed Farm in question came to the Chak accompanied by Ilaqa Police force and Patwari Halqa on 2-4-1969 and forcibly ejected the petitioners from Rectangle No 48/82, Killas Nos. 1-12/2 and 13 of Rectangle No. 34/82 and Killas Nos. 1-12 and 13 of Rectangle No. 55/82. It is contended that the petitioners were not present at the time when their ejectment took place. Their family members, however, protested against this forcible ejectment and also showed bath the orders of this Court passed on 6-5-1968 and 24-5-1968 respectively, to the person concerned.
2. It is admitted that before taking the decision to dispossess the petitioners from the land in dispute no show-cause notice whatsoever was served upon them. Respondent No. 2 made an application to respondent No. 1 for the ejectment of the petitioners from the land sad respondent No. I passed the impugned order on 1-4-69, vide Annex. `A', reproduced above. This order was complied with and in pursuance of that the petitioners were ejected summarily. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the ejectment of the petitioners is in contravention of the provision as contained in section 17 of West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation Ordi--nance, 1961. They could be ejected only if an order made under subsection (1) of section 17 was not complied with by them and in the present case no such order was passed.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has not denied that the petitioners were ejected summarily without any show---cause notice. According to him no such notice was required as the petitioners were lease-holders for a period of one year and the lease had already expired in January 1969, vide pattanama Annex. R. I. It would be better to reproduce the provision of section 17 of West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation Ordinance, 1961: "17. Powers to control letting of lard and rights of tenants.-(1)
14. The Corporation may by regulations provide for-
(a) the terms and conditions on which-
(i) land-holders or any class of land-holders in a project area shall let land for cultivations; or
(ii) Persons who, at the commencement of this Ordinance, were in cultivating possession of agricultural land may continue in such possession; and
(b) the person or class of persons to whom agricultural land shall be let by land-holders.
(2) An order made under subsection (1) shall have effect, notwithstanding anything contained in any law regulating the letting of land for cultivation in force in the locality in which that order applies, or any notice sent or thing done under such law.
(3) On the application of the Corporation, any Magistrate or Police Officer may summarily eject any person who is in cultivating possession of agricultural land contrary to the provisions of an order made under subsection (1), and on similar application summarily restore possession to any person who may be entitled to it and may use such force as may be necessary for the purpose.
(4) In this section "land-holder" means any person who, in accordance with any law, or any custom having the force of law, has the right to let land for cultivation."
15. It has not been denied that no order under subsection (1) of section 17 of the said Ordinance was passed before ejecting the petitioners. Subsection (3) of section 17 will come into play only when any person is in cultivating possession of land contrary to the conditions of an order made under subsection (1) of section 17. Since no such order was ever passed, therefore, provision as contained in subsection (3) of section 17 could not be attracted in the present case. It has been argued that lease in respect of the land in dispute executed by the petitioners in favour of respondent No. 2 had expired in January 1969 and therefore, they could be ejected summarily without any show-cause notice. This argument has no force, as issuing of show---cause notice has not bean expressly excluded from the-provisions ofthe West Pakistan Ordinance XXV of 1961. Moreover section 17 of the said Ordinance contemplates that if any person is in cultivating possession in contravention of the terms and conditions of an order passed under subsection (1) then he can be summarily ejected implying thereby that the person concerned has to be first made conscious of the said violations by means of a show-cause notice and then necessary action may be taken against him.
16. It can never be the intention of the Legislature that without hearing a party or in violation of the principles of natural justice a person who is in cultivating possession may be ejected forthwith. It may also be mentioned that even after the expiry of the lease period, the petitioners were holding on and in that case it was necessary to issue them show-cause notice before ejecting them in a summary manner. The principle of Audi alteram parten has been held to be applicable in such cases where orders are passed by administrative Tribunal or Authorities affecting the rights of citizens regarding property or person without Riving an opportunity of being heard. It is one of the settled principles of law that no one can be condemned unheard. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held so in cases reported as Abdus-Saboor Khan v. Karachi University and another (PLD 1966 SC 536),The University of Dacca etc. v. Zakir Ahmad (PLD 1965 SC 90), Sh. Abdur Rehman v.
17. The Collector and Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar and 13 others (PLD 1944 SC 461), Messrs Farid Sons Ltd., Karachi v. Government of Pakistan and another (PLD 1961 SC 537) and Chief Commissioner, Karachi and another v. Mrs. Dina Sohrab Katrak (PLD 1959 SC 45).
4. The impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 vide Annex. 'A' is also liable to be set aside being in contravention of section 3 of West Pakistan Autonomous Bodies Immovable Property (Ejectment of Unauthorised Occupants) Ordinance, 1965, which reads as follows:-- "Eviction of unauthorized occupants.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in any law for the time being in force, any person who, without lawful authority enters upon any immovable property vesting in an autonomous body, or wrongfully uses or occupies any such property, to the use or occupation whereof, he is not legally entitled, may, after being given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such action, be summarily evicted by such autonomous body, or any officer or authority of such autonomous body authorised by it in this behalf, with the use of such force as may be necessary, and any crop raised on such property and any building, encroachment or other construction erected thereon shall, if not removed by such person after service on him of a notice by such autonomous body, or a person or other authority so authorised by it, requiring him to remove such crop, building, encroachment or other construction within a period of not less than seven days of the services, on him of such notice, be liable to forfeiture and removal without payment of compensation after the expiry of the period specified in the notice, and any expenses incurred by the autonomous body in the removal of such building, encroach--ment or other construction, may be recovered from such person on the certificate of autonomous body, or the officer or other authority empowered by it in this behalf, as arrears of land revenue.
(2) A notice under subsection (1) may be served, as may be directed by the authority or officer issuing the same-
(a) by giving or tendering to the person upon whom it 9s to be served, the said notice; or
(b) by affixing it on a conspicuous place on or near the immovable property to which it relates or on any building or other structure on such property.
(3) An order of ejectment made under subsection (1) shall not be enforced until the expiry of seven days from the date of such order."
18. This provision clearly lays down that any person who is un--authorised occupant may be summarily evicted by an autonomous body after having been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such action. This Ordinance was promulgated vide Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary dated 27 November 1965, and had been extended to the whole of West Pakistan except tribal areas and came into force at once. Respondent No. 1 as an autonomous body should have complied with the relevant provisions of this Ordinance before taking any action for the ejectment of the petitioners from the land in dispute who claim to be authorised occupants.
5. The result of the above discussion is that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 on 1-4- 1969 in pursuance of which the petitioners were dispossessed of the land in dispute cannot be sustained in law being illegal and without lawful authority. We accept the petition and set aside the impugned order. There will be no order as to costs.