SARDAR MUHAMMAD Versus UMAR DIN ALIAS MUHAMMAD DIN

This will dispose of C.Rs. Nos.890, 891 and 892 of 1992.

2. The petitioners' suit was for the possession of the land in question on the basis of tide. The defendants, respondents herein, contested the suits. The suits were decreed by the judgment of the learned Civil Judge dated 21-5-1989. On the defendants' appeal, however, the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, took what he described as the judicial notice of a notification, issued by the Government of the Punjab, under the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 No.L J-2/8073/M/DRA, dated 25th March, 1976 and observed that the land in question had been acquired by the Government and held that the plaintiffs, petitioners herein, had "no locus standi to retain the aforesaid land or to claim ownership thereof after issuance of notification by the Government of Punjab since after the pronouncement of the notification, Government of Punjab is the owner of the disputed land??" He, therefore, rejected the plaint of the petitioners' suit under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in accepting the notification as evidence at the appeal stage, the petitioners were taken by surprise that they had no opportunity of objecting to the acceptance of the notification as evidence or to show, that notification did not affect the petitioners' ownership. This contention must, in my view, succeed. It was not the defendants' case in their written statements that the petitioners had ceased to be the owners of the land in suit nor was the notification produced at any stage of the suit. The petitioners, therefore, were, entitled to a hearing which included the right to object to the admissibility of the notification at that stage and in case .the notification was accepted as evidence to lead such evidence in rebuttal as they thought necessary.

4. For these reasons, the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, dated 18-4-1992 is set aside and the appeals are sent back to him for decision in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

H.B.T./S-507/L ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.