GHAUS vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL And Other
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court order regarding the allotment of land. The dispute arose when the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelled an allotment previously granted to the private respondents, citing misrepresentation and fraud regarding the calculation of Produce Index (P.I.) Units. The respondents successfully challenged this cancellation in the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1956, arguing they were denied a fair hearing. The petitioner, who was subsequently granted the disputed land following the initial cancellation, sought leave to appeal, contending that the respondents failed to implead him as a party in the Constitutional petition, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal, determining that the petitioner's complaint regarding the lack of opportunity to be heard in the proceedings affecting his interest in the land required further examination. The Court directed an expedited disposal of the appeal, allowing the parties to present additional documentation while relying on the existing record.
- Does the failure to implead a subsequent allottee in a constitutional petition challenging the cancellation of a prior allotment violate the principles of natural justice?
- Is a party whose rights are affected by a court order entitled to be heard in the proceedings?
- Article 98, Constitution of Pakistan 1956
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--The dispute in both these petitions concerns land allotted to the private respondents on 8-3-1963 under five Khatas of R.L. II of Village Panj-Gireen, Tehsil and District Gujranwala on transfer of their excess P.I. Units from Village Leel of the same Tehsil and District. The Additional Settlement Commissioner Gujranwala, however, cancelled this allotment by the order, dated 29-7-1966 on a Mukhbari application by one Ghulam Muhammad and others on the ground that the respondents were guilty of obtaining the allotment in excess of their entitlement by misrepresentation and fraud by getting the entitlement calculated at 65 P.I. Units as against 28 P.I.
2. Units per Acre. The respondents ultimately succeeded in challenge to the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner on a petition under Article 98 of 1956 Constitution on the ground that the respondents had not even been heard by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner before he passed the impugned order.
3. The petitioner, herein, now seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court on the ground that after the cancellation of the allotment of` the respondents, the disputed area was confirmed in his name on 5-8-1968 and the respondents did not intentionally, join the petitioner as a party to the Constitutional petition and the judgment of the High Court has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice so far as the petitioner is concerned.
4. The complaint deserves examination, we therefore, grant special leave. Security Rs.2,000.
5. Since only a short question is involved in the disposal of the appeal, office to expedite its disposal.
6. The appeal shall be heard on the present record but the parties are at liberty to file additional documents, if any.