The petitioner is a displaced person from Qasba Nanuta District Saharanpur U.P., a non-agreed area. His claim for 2738 P.I.U. On form QPRV was verified and he was allotted land measuring 2746 Kanals Banjar Qadeem in Mauza Jhangi Ram Tehsil Mankera on RL-11 Khata No. 6 which was confirmed in his favour on 25th of March, 1960. On the promulgation of the Martial Law Regulation No. 84 as constituted Martial Law Regulation 89 and amended by Martial Law Regulation 91, his entitlement was re-verified for 1872 units thus reducing it by 867 P.I.U. Out of the land confirmed in the name of the petitioner, an area of 869 Kanals was cancelled in view of reduction of the entitlement. The petitioner was entitled to exercise the option to purchase the surrendered land and according to him he exercised that option by filing an application on 19th of February, 1982.
Since no action was being taken by the respondent on his application, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 808-R of 1977 which was decided on 26th of April 1982 and it was directed that the Deputy Commissioner Mianwali (the only respondent in the said writ petition) shall examine the right of the petitioner after hearing him with reference to the Martial Law Regulations in accordance with law.
2. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 26th of April, 1982 an enquiry was held by the Deputy Commissioner Mianwali who came to the conclusion that the petitioner had exercised his option for the purchase of the surrendered land by filing requisite application on 19th of February, 1962 and also that the petitioner was in possession of the land ever-since then. In these circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner Mianwali respondent No. 2, on 15th of October 1984 passed an order of sale of the surrendered land to the petitioner at-the rate of Rs. 100 per P.I.U. Lie however stated that the order of sale would be subject to confirmation by the Board of Revenue. It appears from the letter dated 15th of August, 1985 (Annexure K) that the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue refused to confirm the sale. By this constitutional petition the petitioner has challenged this order of the Board of Revenue.
3. From the order dated 15th of October, 1984 of the Deputy Commissioner it is clear that he, after holding an enquiry, recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner had exercised the option to purchase the surrendered land by filing the requisite application on 19th of February, 1962, before the target date. In terms of para 4 of the Scheme for disposal of land surrendered under Martial Law Regulation No. 89 as amended by Martial Law Regulation 91, the petitioner was required to make such an application to Deputy Commissioner and was entitled as of right to purchase the land. Unfortunately, however, while passing the impugned order the Deputy Commissioner, imposed a condition on the sale of this land to the effect that it would be subject to confirmation by the Board of Revenue. On prima facie view of the matter, no such condition could be attached.
Be that as it may, the Board of Revenue while refusing confirmation of the sale failed to observe the principles of natural justice by not allowing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The refusal as communicated to the Deputy Commissioner vide the impugned memorandum was made without allowing the petitioner to place his point of view before the learned Member. It is well settled in law that before passing any order detrimental to a right of a person, he must be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The order of the Board of Revenue being violative of the natural justice is liable to be struck down on this ground alone and the same is declared to be without lawful authority and without legal effect.
An application under. Order 1 rule 10 (C.M. No. 60 of 1989) has been tiled by Habib Ahmad son of Haji Malook, case Khandowa, for being impleaded as a party to the petition on the ground that he being a tenant was eligible to purchase the land. Since the matter is being remanded, to the Board of Revenue, it is not necessary to pass any order on the said application. Habib Ahmad, if so advised, may move the Board of Revenue in the matter.