JUDGMENT GHULAM MAHMOOD QURESHI, J. - At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this writ petition was ordered to he heard along with Writ. Petition No. 8-R-1994. It is vide order dated 24.1.1996. As the petitioners in the present writ petition are almost the same who filed Writ Petition No. 8-R-1994, I have disposed of the above said writ petition by a detailed judgment of even date. The brief facts which are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that one Abdul Majeed son of Mst. Rahima Bibi, a displaced person from Chahroli Kalria Estate submitted claim for No. 4655 for his land abandoned in India. The claim was verified equal to 492 Begha, 19 Biswas and an allotment to the tune of 1440 kanals; was made in the name of the said claimant in village Hajipur Gujran, Tehsil and District Narowal on 21.9.1969 by the Border Area Allotment Committee.
Out of this allotment an area of 927 kanals, 10 marlas was sold to the petitioners and Mutations Nos.
31 and 53 to this effect were sanctioned on 21.4.1985 and 5.12.1988 respectively which was given effect in the Revenue Record. Subsequently when the Border Area Allotment Committee visited the village Hajipur Gujran, it was found during scrutiny of record that the land obtained by Abdul Majeed wa$ not genuine allotment. The Border Area Allotment Committee during proceedings issued notice to Abdul Majid and in response thereof Abdul Rauf and Nazir Ahmad appeared and produced RL-II and Fard-e-Haqiat. However, no notice was issued to the vendees and the proceedings were taken behind their back. Hence, this Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of the Border Area Allotment Committee cancelling the land from the name of Abdul Majeed is based on three reasons firstly his claim was cancelled by the Central Record Office: secondly allotment was made by only one Member and lastly the claim was never received in this Mauza through transfer up til 24.12.1952 which is target date. Learned counsel has contended that none of the reasons given by the Border Area Allotment Committee while cancelling the land from the name of the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners is valid, In support of his arguments, he has referred to the order dated 17.12,1968 available at pages 28 and 29 of the writ petition wherein it is mentioned as under:- {{ URDU TEXT MISS }} "17-12-680 30"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners, the petitioners could not produce this document before the Border Area Allotment Committee. He has further submitted that if the allotment order contained signatures of only one Member then on this ground the allotment cannot be cancelled. As far as the availability of the claim. Of Abdul Majeed in village Hajipur Gujran is concerned. Learned counsel submitted that it is a matter of record which was never considered as the claim of the petitioners was already pending in the above said Mauza. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has referred to amend Ordinance, 1981.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has submitted that the original claimant along with vendees namely Abdul Rauf and Nazir Ahmad appeared before the B Area Allotment Committee and they also produced RL-II Khata No. 21. On the basis of the record learned counsel submits that no allotment was made to the claimant right holder and the claim of the petitioners was not available in the Mauza before the target date.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and also perused the record. Since the connected writ petition filed by some of the petitioners, has been accented and the case has been remanded to the Border Area Allotment Committee. The points raised in the present petition also need detailed inquiry and since the petitioners were not afforded opportunity of being heard, I have no option hut to remand this case also to the Border Area Allotment Committee.
6. In the light of what has been discussed above, the writ petition is accepted and the order dated 23.11.1993 passed by the Border Area~ Allotment Committee is set aside and the same is declared to have been passed without lawful authority. The case is remanded to the Border Area Allotment Committee who shall decide the same afresh keeping in view the aforesaid observation, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The parties shall bear their on costs.