1. ' Order dated 13-6-1995 passed by respondent No,1, the Notified Officer to whom the matter was remitted vide judgment dated 28-11-1988 passed in Writ Petition No,107-R of 1979 has been challenged by the petitioners on number of grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. ' During the course of hearing of the matter, somewhat strange and anomalous position has come to my notice inasmuch as in pursuance of the remand order, the proceedings taken by the learned Notified Officer are reflective of the manner in which the matter has been dealt with which renders the order unsustainable in law. On 25-1-1995 it was ordered that the entitlement of the parries could be determined by summoning the record from the Central Record. Office. The case was accordingly adjourned to 9-54995 for its purpose. On the adjourned date i,e, 9-5-1995 neither the record had been received nor the Patwari was present, the case was then, adjourned to 23-5-1995 for this purpose, however, the same position continued nor it was adjourned to 30-5-1995. On 6-6- 1995 it was again noted that the verification had not been received from the Central Record Room, the matter was then, adjourned to 13-6-1995 for the same purpose. By a short order of 13-6-1995, the Mukhbari petition was ordered to be allowed noting that the detailed order was being written separately. The order sheet of the said date does not disclose whether the record and the verification had been received or not. The matter, however, does not end here. On 14-6-1995, the Patwari was summoned to produce the record on 19-6-1995. The Patwari appears to have failed to produce the same on account of his ailment and was again summoned for 21-6-1995. This all shows that the date on which i,e, 13-6-1995, learned' Notified Officer proceeded to decide the matter, the record was not available before him and in any case he made use of record procured after the conclusion of the proceedings and announcement of the order. This factual/legal aspect of-the matter which is borne out from the record could not be disputed even by the learned 'counsel for the respondents. Respondent No,1, Thus, clearly acted illegally as the parties to the litigation had no opportunity of inspecting/examining the record and plead their case accordingly.
3. One of the principles of natural justice is that the party concerned should have opportunity of representation, defence and hearing in the proceedings before the Tribunal concerned, which includes that the Tribunal is to decide the matter on the basis of the material forming part of the record before it and extraneous material cannot be taken into consideration. The concept of the principles of natural justice also envisages that the material going to be relied upon as evidence against a person must be confronted to him for his comments and rebuttal. This concept of adjudication of matters and dispensation of justice rests upon of quoted principles of natural justice contained in number of books on the topic of Administrative law and justice. In Raziuddin v.
4. Chairman, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and 2 others (PLD 1992 SC 531 at page 541), the under mentioned passages were noticed to highlight the importance of this principle: "The general principle is that an adjudicatory body is to decide the matter on the basis of materials placed before it in the course of proceedings. It cannot take extraneous matters unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilized has been given an opportunity to rebut or explain the same.
5. ' If the adjudicator is going to rely on any material, evidence or document for basing his decision against the individual, then the same must be placed before him for his comments and rebuttal. It is regarded as of fundamental principle of natural justice that no materials should be relied on against a party without giving him an opportunity of explaining the same. The right to know the materials on which the authority is going to take a decision is a part of the right to defend oneself.
6. The principle can be seen operating in several judicial pronouncements where nondisclosure of the evidence to the affected party has been held to be fatal to the hearing proceedings."
7. ' It may be noted that writ petition was filed on 13-7-1995 challenging the short order dated 13-6- 1995 as the detailed order was not available or supplied to the petitioners. Such an assertion finds support from paragraphs Nos.10 and 11 of the writ petition. The detailed order was, however, brought on record later on through miscellaneous application. The perusal of the noting of the Copying Agency in this order shows that petitioner had made application for copy of the order on 13-6-1995 i,e, the date of announcement of the short order, but the copy thereof was supplied on 20-7-1995. It prima facie supports the assertion of the petitioners that for a long time, the order was not written and was not ready which was apparently for the reason that the record was being awaited by the learned Notified Officer. Such disposition of the matter to say the least is not in accord with the judicial norms. A judicial disposition concerning the rights of the parties should be transparent and open,, made after affording full right of representation to the parties concerned to support their respective claims/pleas. The impression is quite evident in this case that the Notified Officer announced the short order on 13-6-1995 without there being the essential record before him. Such a disposition of the matter is not sustainable nor it was compliance of the remand order passed by this Court. Since in view of the above, the matter will have to be re-determined by the Notified Officer in terms of the remand order passed by this Court mentioned above, I have refrained from recording any observation about the respective pleas of the parties so that the Notified Officer to whom the matter goes is in a position to make a just and fair determination of the matter with open mind in the light of the observations in the earlier remand order in accordance with law.
8. ' As a result of the above, order dated 13-6-1995 is declared as unlawful and of no legal effect. The matter is remitted to the learned Member, Beard of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner for its entrustment to a Notified Officer having jurisdiction in the matter to decide the same afresh. No order as to costs.,