IJAZ AHMAD and others vs Mst. DEEBA NAWAZ and others
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of land allotments previously made to one Abdullah, from whom the appellants had purchased land. The appellants, as vendees in possession of the agricultural land, were not impleaded as parties in the administrative proceedings that declared the original allotments fraudulent and cancelled them in favor of the respondents. The core legal question was whether the appellants, as subsequent purchasers in possession, were entitled to a hearing before their interests in the land could be adversely affected by the cancellation of the original allotment. The Supreme Court held that the appellants had a fundamental right to be heard before the cancellation of the allotments affecting their possession. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and the order of the Settlement Commissioner, remanding the case to the Notified Officer to provide the appellants and respondents an opportunity of being heard before determining priority in the allotment of the disputed land, excluding specific lands allotted in 1957.
- Is a subsequent purchaser of land entitled to be heard in proceedings concerning the cancellation of the original allotment?
- Can an order cancelling land allotments be sustained if the parties in possession were not impleaded or heard?
' RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This is an appeal by Ijaz Ahmad and others, appellants, against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 26-3-1966 dismissing in limine their writ petition.
2. Ijaz Ahmad and others, appellants, are the vendees of the land situate in village Ladheke Cheema, which was sold to them by one Abdullah for valuable consideration vide Mutation No,1908 sanctioned on 30-1-1977. Since then the appellants have been in possession thereof.
3. It appears that in 1974, on an information furnished by respondents 4 to 9 the allotments made in favour of Abdullah in village Thatha Chinna as well as in village Ladheke Cheema, which are both situated in Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujranwala, were found to be fraudulently obtained and treated as bogus. They were accordingly cancelled and the land was allotted to the informants Atta Muhammad and others, respondents Nos. 4 to 9. Since the appellants had not been impleaded as parties in the proceedings resulting in the cancellation of their allotments, the said order of cancellation was accordingly challenged through a writ petition by the appellants, which petition was dismissed in limine.
4. Being aggrieved by the above judgment, the appellants petitioned this Court for leave to appeal, which leave was granted.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents and have perused the record. There was a tussle between the appellants who were in occupation of the agricultural land occupied by them from a fraudulent allottee before 1973 and which was still in their occupation and persons who had furnished information about the fraudulent or bogus allotment as a result whereof the allotment was cancelled. But before this matter could be decided, the appellants had a right to be heard.
They were not heard. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the to the Notified Officer to hear the appellants and then decide the matter. This, however, will not cover the lands obtained by Abdullah in Bahawalnagar in 1957.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is accepted, the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 26-3-1986 and of the learned Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore, dated 30-6-1977 are set .Aside and the case is remanded to the Notified Officer to hear the appellants and the respondents before deciding who shall have priority in the matter of allotment of the disputed agricultural land. The Notified Officer, however, shall not touch the land previously allotted to Abdullah in Bahawalnagar District in 1957. There shall be no order as to costs.