Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD AJAIB
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir arises from a dispute concerning the partition of Shamlat Deh land and subsequent corrections in revenue records and mutations. The core legal question was whether revenue authorities could modify property rights and correct records without affording an opportunity of hearing to affected parties, thereby violating the principle of natural justice. The Supreme Court held that the failure to provide an opportunity of hearing vitiates the proceedings, and any modification of property rights without adhering to the maxim audi alteram partem is legally flawed regardless of the merits. The court's final order allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders of the revenue authorities and the High Court, and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner/Collector Mirpur for fresh adjudication after granting the appellants a hearing. The key principle laid down is that the fundamental principle of natural justice and the right of audience must be strictly observed in revenue proceedings involving property rights.
- Whether the modification of property rights in revenue records without affording an opportunity of hearing violates the principle of natural justice?
- Does the failure to provide a hearing vitiate revenue orders even if the correction is claimed to be justified on merits?
- What is the effect of denying a fair opportunity of presentation of case on subsequent appellate and writ judgments?
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, CJ.--- The respondents, Muhammad Ajaib and Muhammad Shabir, filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner Mirpur asserting that during the partition of Shamlat Deh land, their land was erroneously allotted to a third party despite their possession of land bearing survey No.1724/125 measuring 3 kanal, survey No. 1726/1 measuring 3 kanal 18 marlas, survey No. 1725/125 measuring 4 kanal 10 marlas, and survey No. 1211/125 measuring 3 kanal 8 marlas, Khewat No. 247. They contended that mutation No. 589 had been attested in their favor but that the partition proceedings were conducted without serving them a notice, thereby violating the due process of law. Based on this application, the Collector Mirpur sanctioned the necessary corrections in the record and ordered the corresponding changes in the mutation through orders dated 05.11.2014 and 16.12.2014. These orders were challenged by the appellants before the Commissioner Mirpur, who accepted the appeal and set aside the Collector's orders vide order dated 20.11.2015. However, upon further appeal by the respondents, the Board of Revenue reversed the Commissioner's decision and reinstated the orders of the Collector. The review petition filed by the appellants before the Board of Revenue was 27.03.2018. Subsequently, dismissed appellants' writ petition before the High Court was also dismissed on 29.11.2023.
2.Mr. Abdul Razzaque Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the orders dated 05.11.2014 and 16.12.2014, as well as the subsequent judgments passed by the revenue authorities and the High Court, are illegal and contrary to the record. He contended that the correction in the Sanadnama, made without affording the appellants an opportunity of hearing, amounts to a grave violation of the principle of audi alteram partem (no one shall be condemned unheard). He further stated that the learned High Court erred in holding that the correction did not cause any grievance to the appellants, as their land area had been reduced due to the alteration.
3.Conversely, Mr. Haji Imran, learned counsel for the respondents, defended the impugned judgment, arguing that the appellants lacked locus standi to file the appeal as no rights of the appellants had been infringed. He asserted that the record was corrected in accordance with law and the claim of the appellants regarding a reduction in their landholding was factually incorrect. He emphasized that no documentary evidence was presented before any forum to substantiate the alleged reduction in landholding.
4.This Court, after perusal of the record and consideration of the arguments presented, finds that the principle of natural justice has been violated in the present case. The orders dated 05.11.2014 and 16.12.2014, which resulted in a modification of property rights, were passed without affording the appellants an opportunity of hearing. The maxim " audi alteram partem " is a fundamental tenet of our legal system, ensuring that no person is condemned unheard. The importance of procedural fairness is underscored not only in domestic jurisprudence but also in divine law, which prohibits injustice and mandates that decisions affecting rights be made transparently and equitably.
5.The Board of Revenue and the High Court erred in disregarding this fundamental principle. Even if the correction was justified on merits, the failure to provide an opportunity of hearing to the appellants renders the entire process legally flawed. The assertion of the respondents that the appellants have not suffered any loss is a question that could only have been determined after granting them a fair opportunity to present their case. The denial of such an opportunity vitiates the orders and judgments impugned before this Court.
In view of the foregoing, this appeal is allowed. The orders dated 05.11.2014 and 16.12.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector Mirpur, the subsequent order of the Board of Revenue, and the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 29.11.2023 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner/Collector Mirpur for fresh adjudication after affording the appellants an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law.
The appeal is disposed of in the manner stated above.
SA/44/SC(AJ&K) Appeal allowed.
Judges on this bench
- Raja Saeed Akram Khan1,081 judgments
- Kh. Muhammad Nasim35 judgments