AJMAL MIAN, C. J.-- By this common judgment, we intend to dispose of the above four petitions.
The main ground of attack to the impugned orders passed by respondent No. 1 is that the petitioners were not heard.
2. It seems that the petitioners in C.P. No. D-283 of 1979 and C.P. No.284 of 1979 and the legal guardian of the petitioner in C.P.No.D-1132 of 1979 were under detention, whereas petitioner in C.P.
No.D-109 of 1979 was abroad. It further seems that Mr. Mujeeb Pirzada learned counsel has riled his personal affidavit to the effect that he appeared before the respondent No. 1 requesting for adjournment on the ground that the aforesaid petitioners were in custody and he would obtain Vakalatnama from them for appearance on their behalf, but he was not allowed time, nor he was heard, though in the impugned order it has been stated that the Advocate was heard. No counter affidavit to deny the above averment has been filed by the official respondents.
3. In our view, it will be just and proper to remand the case to the Federal Land Commission to cause the disposal of the above cases afresh after notice to the petitioners and to the respondents and after hearing them. Similar order was passed in C.P. No D-104 of 1979, Begum Nusrat Bhutto v.
Senior Member, Land Commission Sind and other connected petitions on 19-3-1984 by a Division Bench of this Court presided by the then Chief Justice.
The petitions stand disposed of in the above terms with no order as to cost: M.Y.H./B-108/K