NAZAR MUHAMMAD AND Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition filed by landowners against the cancellation of their land allotments. The petitioners, who had purchased land and obtained mutations, were subject to proceedings under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. They alleged that their land was cancelled by the Additional Settlement Commissioner without proper notice or inquiry, claiming they were condemned unheard. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were denied due process and the right to be heard during the cancellation proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the record indicated notice was issued to the petitioners and, upon failure of personal service, substituted service was duly effected. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the contention that the petitioners were condemned unheard, as they had failed to appear despite the legal service of notice. The judgment affirms the principle that where substituted service is properly executed, the requirement of notice is satisfied, and a party cannot claim to have been condemned unheard.
- Does the failure of a party to appear after substituted service has been effected constitute being condemned unheard?
- Can an order of land cancellation be challenged on the grounds of lack of notice if the record shows substituted service was performed?
- Section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958
- Section 11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This petition is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 667/R of 1973 dated 26-11-75. By this Order the Writ Petition was dismissed.
2. Briefly the facts leading to the present petition are that petitioners Nos. 1 to 21 are land owners in village Qila Dharam Singh, Tehsil Nankana, District Sheikhupura. It is alleged that they purchased land through registered sale deed and subsequently a mutation was effected in the names of the petitioners on the basis that they are claimants and that they are bona fide purchasers for consideration. The petitioners received a notice that proceed--ings have been initiated against them under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 in the Court of Mr. Waheeduddin Rathore, Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Lahore. In pursuance of this notice they appeared in the said Court and kept on appearing on various hearings and the case is still pending before the said Officer. It is alleged that during the course of proceedings, the petitioners heard a rumour that their land has already been cancelled on which the petitioners approached the Ilaqa Patwari and obtained a copy of their R. L. II: On the said R. L. Ii the land was still in the petitioners' names, and there was no entry cancelling the same. Petitioners made further inquiries and learnt from the office of the Add]. Settlement Commissioner (Land), Lahore that their land has been cancelled by Order dated 12-8-72 in Case No. 323,/A Sheikhupura by Mr. Waheeduddin Rathore. Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Lahore. The petitioners approached the learned Settlement Commissioner, who, without assigning any cogent reasons, dismissed their appeal, and upheld the order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore. It is alleged that the order of cancellation of land from the names of the petitioners was illegal because no notice was served upon the petitioners. It was alleged that the notice served upon the petitioners was a faked one and no actual service was effected It is further alleged that no inquiries had been made into the matter and the petitioners had been condemned unheard.
3. The petitioners challenged this Order in Writ Petition No. 657IR of 1973 but the same was dismissed by Order dated 26-11-75. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said Order.
4. Mr. Abdul Wahid, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners have been condemned unheard, and that no proper inquiries ere conducted before the impugned order was passed. The contention of the learned counsel is not well-founded. According to the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, notice was issued to all concerned including the, petitioners.
5. This notice was not served on the petitioners. Thereafter, substituted service was effected but in spite of that the petitioners did not turn up It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioners have been condemned unheard. There is no force in the petition. The petition is dismissed.