This writ petition is principally based on the grievance that the staff of the notified officer had colluded with the other party and made interpolations in the order so as to show that the petitioners had made certain concessions.
2. The case has been called out. None is present on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, nor their counsel has turned up. The respondents who are absent are ordered ex parte.
3. There are very unusual features of this case. The Mukhbari application was moved before the Revenue Assistant/ Assistant Settlement Commissioner on 12th February, 1963. In so far as my knowledge goes, the Assistant Commissioners were not competent to receive such an application as they were not invested with the power under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. This is a matter which ought to have been attended to by the functionary who undertook the disposal of the application. The proceedings were commenced by the Revenue Assistant on 14-2-1963 when he gave a notice to the other side for 16-2-1963. The second order sheet on the file itself shows that there hag been overwriting of the date. There is further allegation supported by the affidavit of the petitioners that these were collusive proceedings and the staff of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner was in league with the opposite side and a statement of Badloo petitioner which was recorded on 16-2-1963 carries the additional cross-examination which was asserted later on and admission was attributed to said Badloo. There is still another unusual feature brought to the notice of this Court which is an interim order dated 16-2-1963 written in the same hand as the rest of the writing on the page where it is observed that tialqa Patwari should be summoned for 20-2-1903. It is immediately followed by another order that Munshi Bashir Ahmad Halqa Patwari is present. His statement should be recorded. Strangely enough when the statement of the Patwari had been recorded it carried the date of 20th February, 1903. So all is not well with the file. It is very difficult to believe that for 15 long years the case was moving from office to office and from person to person because the ultimate order has been passed on 5th March, 1978, and the Notified Officer acted on the material which had already been brought on the file.
4. The order of the Notified Officer shows that there has been a mockery of the rules of natural justice. He has himself observed that "Registered Acknowledgment Due notices in the names of vendees had been received back undelivered with the remarks that the addressees did not live there. After issuance of show-cause notices they were proceeded ex parte." If it was brought to his notice that the addresses of the vendees were incorrect then it was his duty to call upon the petitioner to give correct addresses for the purpose of service. In the alternative if he was of the view that the persons sought to be served could not be served in the ordinary course it was his duty to serve them by publication in newspaper. None of the two had been done. The proceedings, therefore, appear to be B perfunctory. In such like circumstances, I think the proper course to ensure that justice is done to the parties is to set aside the impugned order and remand the case for fresh decision in accordance with law. The officer in remand will attend to all the allegations which are being levelled and which prima facie appear to have some substance. My observations will, however, not be construed as a verdict on merit. The Notified Officer shall also give notice to all the parties and ensure their service in accordance with law. The Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement) shall ensure that this case is entrusted to a Notified Officer of integrity.
5. In view of what has been stated above the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded with the observations made above. The persons who are absent before this Court today may also join the proceedings so that truth is discovered and nobody is prejudiced. There shall be no order as to costs.