' This writ Petition is directed against order dated 7-1-1987 passed by respondent No.1 whereby the revision petition filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 was allowed and the lease of land in dispute in favour of the petitioner was cancelled.
2. Muhammad Ashraf petitioner being the highest bidder was leased out the evacuee trust land comprising Khasra Nos.10/16, 17/1, 19, 20 and 11/1, 10, 11, 20, 21 measuring 10 acres 3 kanals situate in village Ram Parshad, Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara. The petitioner deposited the lease money and possession of the land in question was delivered to him. Sardar respondent challenged the order dated 22-10-1985 in appeal whereby his application seeking extension of lease in his favour was refused and the land was allowed to be leased out in open auction but his appeal failed on 5-11- 1986 before the Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Central Zone, Lahore.
' Aggrieved by the aforesaid order he preferred revision petition which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 7-1-1987 by respondent No.l. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Sardar respondent filed revision petition on 15- 12-1986 and the same was allowed on 7-1-1987 without notice to the petitioner. He referred to order dated 14-1-1987 passed by the Magistrate, Depalpur to show that the petitioner was arrested in case F.I.R. No.284/87 on 2-12-1986 and was released on bail on 14-1-1987. It was further contended that the observation of respondent No.1 in the impugned order that the petitioner was absent on 7- 1-1987 despite service is factually incorrect. No notice was served upon the petitioner as he was detained in jail at the relevant time.
4. Learned counsel representing the respondents were unable to controvert the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The perusal of the record does not indicate that the petitioner was ever served for 7-1-1987. The copy of notice at page 17 of the file shows that the revision petition was fixed for hearing on 6-1- 1987 with no indication as to whether the petitioner was served regarding the aforementioned date.
The case was decided on 7-1-1987 although this was not a date fixed for hearing of the case. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order was passed on 7-1-1987 by respondent No.1 without proper service of the petitioner and the observation of respondent No.1 in para 2 of the impugned order that the petitioner did not appear despite service is against the record.
' In this view of the matter I have no option but to declare the impugned order dated 7-1-1987 of respondent No.1 having been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. This petition is allowed and the case is remanded to respondent No. 1 for fresh decision after hearing the parties with no order as to costs specially because learned counsel for the respondents did not seriously contest this petition.
' The parties are directed to appear before respondent No.1 on 10-8-1987.