MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.- The dispute in this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 relates to land measuring 8 kanals and 10 marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 1520 and 1502/1, situated in Qila Deedar Singh, Tehsil and District Gujranwala which was originally allotted tp Hafiz-ur-Rehman respondent No.7 .Against his claim alongwith some other land.
2. It appears that Hafiz-ur-Rehman sold away his entire holding to Abdul Ghafoor and 21.8.1966, the latter thereafter alienated the land in dispute measuring 8 kanals and 10 marlas to the petitioner in favour a mutation of sale was sanctioned on 16.11.1966.
3. According to the petitioners ever since the purchase of land, they have remained in possession of the same But to their surprise they have learnt that the land in question has been transferred vide the impugned orders to the predecessor of respondents No.3 to 5 purportedly in consequence of orders of this Court in W.P. No. 623-R of 1976 directing that the claim of Shah Bibi predecessor of the respondents No. 4 and 5 be adjusted against the cancelled allotments of Shaukat Ali and from other available land.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the allotment of the land in dispute in favour of the predecessor of the petitioner was never cancelled by any competent authority and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner/Settlement Commissioner (Land) Multan dated 20.9.1977 opining that Hafiz-ur-Rehman had obtained allotment in excess of his entitlement has been misconstrued by the Settlement Authorities as by virtue of the aforesaid order the Settlement Commissioner had only directed that further action may be taken by the Assistant Collector, Gujranwala who never took up the matter nor passed any order.
5. The alternative submission of the Learned counsel is that the 'petitioners being the bona fide purchaser could not be deprived of the land purchased by them on as back as 16.11.1966 without any notice to them and without being given any opportunity of being heard.
6. No one has appeared for respondent. They are proceeded against ex- parte.
7. Both the contentions raised by the Learned counsel for the petitioners have considerable force. It is apparent from the impugned orders that neither at the the of the transfer of the said land nor when the possession of it was ordered to be given to the respondent the Settlement Authorities associated the petitioners with the proceedings. The factum of purchase of the land by the petitioners stood fully mentioned in the revenue records. In these circumstances while passing the.
Impugned orders it was incumbent upon the respondents to have granted the petitioners opportunity of being heard.
8. Similarly the order of the Additional Commissioner/Settlement Commissioner (Land) appears to have been misread by the Notified Officer. Although it is true that an opinion was expressed that Hafiz-ur- Rehman had obtained considerable land in excess of his entitlement but no order for cancellation of any land was passed by the Settlement Commissioner Multan, Who, instead, had directed that copy of that order bd sent to the Assistant Commissioner, Gujranwala who should calculate the entitlement of the allottee and take further action. That exercise still remains to be undertaken. Without having done so and determined as to how much was the area/land out of the allotment to be resumed, the land in question could not be transferred to any other person, at least without cancelling the earlier allotment. The impugned orders are clearly not sustainable.
9. In view of what has been stated above this petition is allowed and impugned orders are declared to be without any authority and without legal effect.
10. No order as to costs.