' The dispute, in this Constitution petition, pertains to agricultural land bearing Khasra No,1110 measuring 8 Kanals situated in Revenue Estate Hardo-Chichhariali, Tehsil and District Gujranwala.
2. The facts, in brief, are: that the land in dispute was allotted to Nizam Din, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners on 8-3-1955 by means of RL-II No,268. It was again allotted to Milkhi/predecessor- in-interest of Fazal Din and Khair Din. Feeling aggrieved, respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed revision petition which was accepted by the learned Settlement Commissioner vide impugned order dated 27-12-1971, holding that Milkhi the original right-holder was the owner of a genuine claim and the disputed land along with Khasra No,883 was correctly allotted in his favour. It is appropriate to mention here, that neither Nizam Din, nor the petitioners, who are his successors-in-interest, were impleaded as party before the first authority nor before the revisional authority. The petitioners entered appearance before the Revisional Authority in pursuance of a notice issued by that Authority.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, assailed the validity of impugned order on two grounds; firstly, that the disputed land was allotted to Nizam Din on 18-3-1955 and was allotted to Milkhi without any cancellation of its allotment in favour of Nizam Din. On this premises it was contended that the allotment in favour of Milkhi was wholly void, ab initio and is nullity in the eye of law.
Secondly, that neither Nizam Din nor his successors-in-interest were party to the proceedings before the first authority as well as the Revisional Authority; that the revisional authority had passed the impugned order without examining the entitlement of the petitioner. On the strength of these circumstances, it was suggested that the order passed by the revisional authority was contrary to the rule of natural justice that nobody should be condemned unheard. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Bashir v. Muhammad Khan 1975 SCM R 173.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, supported the impugned decision. He vehemently contended that RL-II No,268 demonstrated that the allotment of disputed land was cancelled from the name of Nizam Din and was subsequently confirmed in favour of Milkhi. On this premises, it was suggested that the decision rendered by the Revisional Authority was correct and was not susceptible of interference in this Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. The entries in RL-II No,268, unfortunately, do not exude confidence. However, I refrain from commenting upon this document any further, lest it may prejudice the case of the parties in post remand proceedings. Upon the circumstances, noted above, it appears that the petitioners were neither party before the first authority, nor were heard by the Revisional Authority. The case of the petitioners is that Nizam Din was allotted disputed land and without its cancellation it was allotted to Milkhi. This aspect of the matter needs to be adjudicated upon by a competent authority after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. The fact remains that the learned Revisional Authority while passing the impugned order had not examined the case of the petitioners. This being the position, it can be safely concluded that the order passed by the Revisional Authority is manifestly in defiance of principle of natural justice that nobody should be condemned unheard. In view of I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, declared to have been passed without any lawful authority.
6. As a result of foregoing discussion this Constitution petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned Settlement Commissioner dated 27-12-1971 is hereby set aside and the case is remitted to the Notified Officer, Gujranwala, who is directed to decide the case afresh after hearing the parties, strictly in accordance with law. Nothing in this order shall preclude any party from raising any question which they like to raise before the Notified Officer. In the peculiar circumstances of this case I am not inclined to burden any party with costs.