Comments of the respondent No. l have been received and perused.
2: Briefly stated the background of the case is that the petitioner Malik Mumtaz A.I Khan was a declarant under the Land Reforms Act, 1977. The Deputy Land Commissioner, Attock vide his order dated 20-10-1977, determined by declarant's holding on 4-1-1977 to be 14741 P.I.Us. And resumed the excess Area of 6741 P.I.Us. Later Federal Land Commissioner's Inspection Team on scrutiny of the case found that this declarant's ownership of the area in terms of P.I.Us. Held by him on 4-1-1977 was 14886 P.I.Us. And not 14741 P.I.Us. As determined by the Deputy Land Commissioner after excluding the area transferred by the declarant in between 20-12-1971 to 4-1=1977 equal to 34 P.I.Us.
Based on 4 different transactions which were found to be valid.
Therefore, 145 P.I.Us. Had to be resumed from him under the Land Reforms Act, 1977 being in excess of the permissible ceiling.
2. In addition the Federal Land Commission's Inspection Team detected that the declarant was also affected under MLR-115 and the Deputy Land Commissioner. Attock had allowed him to retain 766 Acres 1, Kanal and 3 Marlas equal to 14,000 P.I.Us. But actually the declarant was holding an area of 794 Acres 6 Kanals and 6 Marlas as such the area of 28 Acres 5, Kanals and 1 Marla was retained over and above the prescribed limit which should had been resumed under MLR-115. The Federal Land Commission's Inspection Team also detected that the declarant on 23-8-1977 resumed 592 Acres, 7 Kanals 10, Marlas from his deceased sister as inheritance, which was in excess of the prescribed limit which he already held and that thus this should have also been resumed from him in toto under Land Reforms Act, 1977.
3. The above three objections were received by the Land Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division from the Federal Land Commission of Pakistan through the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab with the direction that suo motu revisional jurisdiction in both the Land Reforms Laws should be invoked and orders of the Deputy Land Commissioner revised accordingly. The Land Commissioner Rawalpindi Division vide Suo Motu Revision No.72 of 1984 served the petitioner with notice under the Punjab Land Reforms Rules of 1972 and 1977 and called upon to show cause as to why the orders of the Deputy Land Commissioner should not be revised and area held by him in excess to the prescribed ceiling not to be resumed from her.
4. The petitioner through his counsel Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate was present before the Land Commissioner who examined record of the case. The petitioner's counsel indicated before the Land Commissioner, Rawalpindi his willingness to surrender the land held by him in excess of the prescribed ceiling under both the laws i.e. Land Reforms Act. Il of 1977 and MLR -115 as has been pointed out by the Federal I-and Commission's Inspection Team; provided he is given a choice to do so. The Land Commissioner passed order accordingly and previous orders of the Deputy Land Commissioner passed in respect of this declarant under MLR-115 and Land Reforms Act, 1977 revised with the direction that declarant should file a statement indicating the land he wishes to surrender within a period of 15 days of this order and further ordered the Deputy Land Commissioner to proceed to the matter to finalize this case within a period of one month of the receipt of this order dated 14-2-1985. The petitioner failed to give his option and the beptttv land Commissioner, Attock vide his order dated 5-9-1984, ordered the resumption of 8702 P.1 Us Later on the petitioner appeared before the Deputy Land Commissioner, Attock on 11-12-1984 alongwith his counsel Syed Zahid Hussain Bukhari, Advocate and made his statement to this effect that he had no objection over the resumption of land inherited on the death of his sister Mst. Sadiq Sultan and on that order dated 9-9-1986 was passed. Copies of both the orders dated 5-9-1984 and 9-9-1986 were sent to the Tehsildar Pindigheb for sanction of the mutations in the 25 villages detailed in the Annexure 'A'. These orders were implemented except the petitioner's village Pindigheb as it was under consideration and the mutations could not be sanctioned at that time.
5. The Tehsildar/SALC Pindtgheb moved vide their reports dated 3-6-1996, the ADC/DLC, Attock for issuance of another order for resumption of the excess land in village Pindigheb as by now the consolidation operations had since been completed. The A.D.C (Consolidation) replied that there was no need of ,cctiance of new order and the land situated in village Pindigheh already stands resumed and directed further compliance. The petitioner is aggrieved by this Letter No.488-LR, dated 26-8-199ti, Inter alia, on the ground that it materially affects Constitution as it could not be passed behind his back. It is settled-principle of law that no one should be condemned unheard.
The proper course for the respondent was to give notice to the petitioner and to hear him and then to pass an order in accordance with law. By the lapse of time certain vested rights have accrued to the petitioner and he has got every right to explain his position in that light.
6. For these reasons the writ petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 26-8-1996 is declared ultra vires of the Constitution and inoperative against the rights and interest of the petitioner.