ALAMGIR KHAN Versus RASHID

1. This writ petition is directed against the orders at Annexures 'C' and 'D' both dated 9‑5‑1975, passed by the A.D. C.(G)/Additional Settlement Commissioner, Multan, in a matter which had been remanded by this Court, vide judgment dated 11‑3‑1975, whereby two Writ Petitions, i.e. Writ Petition No. 673/R of 1971 filed by Rashid and Mst. Tufi, and Writ Petition 577/R of 1972 filed by the Niaza, Alamgir and Rab Nawaz Khan, had been disposed of. The direction had been to decide the matter "after affording the parties opportunity of hearing". By his order at Annexure 'C' the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner decided the matter on the basis of an agreement between the parties. That agreement had come by way of statements made by the parties. There was, however, no statement specifically made by Alamgir or Rab Nawaz Khan petitioners. It is, however, urged on behalf of the respondents that the statement made by Niaza (Annexure R.2) had been signed by Mr. Ayaz Muhammad who was counsel for petitioners Alamgir and Rab Nawaz Khan and as such the petitioners were deemed to have been party to the compromise. I am unable to accept this logic for the reason that the said Advocate had also been the counsel for ' Niaza and if he had put his signature on the statement of Niaza he could not thereby be said to have extended the consent on behalf of his other clients, i.e. the petitioners. In case the petitioners were present, it was necessary to have their own statements recorded instead of their counsel, but in case they were not present then the counsel should have made a statement expressly mentioning that he was doing so in his capacity as attorney of the petitioners and on their behalf. This was not done. It is to be noted in this connection that the petitioners had moved before the learned Authority an application the same day, i.e. 9‑5‑1975 (Annexure 'B') for time to change their counsel, but that application had been rejected the same day for the reason that it was only intended to delay the matter (Annexure 'D'). On these showings. I am unable to hold that the petitioners had been a party to the agreement to which the other parties in the matter had subscribed. The petitioners' grievance that the matter had been disposed of on the basis of an agreement to which they had not been a party and without hearing them has substance. I, therefore, declare the orders of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 9‑5‑1975 (Annexures 'C' and 'D') to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and direct that the matter be decided afresh in terms of my aforesaid judgment dated 11‑3‑1975.

2. H.B.T./A‑279/L Petition accepted/order accordingly.