Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others VS Respondent: SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (Land) and JUDGMENT
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Fazal-e-Mahmood Title:GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (Land) and
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 1987 CLC 1156 Result: Petition accepted Judgment JUDGMENT ' The principal grievance being made in this writ petition is that the petitioners in this case who had a right to be heard were not so heard. 2. I have in vain gone through the file with the help of the learned counsel for both the sides and was unable to find out any acknowledgment due receipt which could show that the petitioners had been served to appear before Mr. Nagi, Settlement Commissioner. Then looking at the heading of the petition as well as the proceedings the address of the original claimants was given was Tahira Begum widow and the others son and daughters of Hafizullah Shameem residents of Karachi. Karachi is a city with a population of over forty lacs and, therefore, mere mention of Karachi against the name would be wholly inadequate to secure service of any person. 3. Moreover, the citation was published in daily 'Maghrabi Pakistan which has almost no circulation in Karachi. In such like cases if the intention was really to effect service in keeping with the spirit of law, the citation should have been appeared in a Karachi newspaper which had circulation in the area. This requirement not having been met, I think no effective service has been made so as to burden the claimants with the responsibility of an information. The petitioners were not proceeded ex parte as is evident from the proceedings sheets but were present before the predecessor of Mr. Nagi. On entrustment of the case to Mr. Nagi, there was no service on the petitioners. Any previous intimation or service before the predecessor officers would thus, be of no consequence. 4. There being a clear violation of the requirement of rule of natural justice and in fact in this case of the absolute requirement of the statute, the impugned proceedings are liable to be struck down to the extent of the petitioners. This petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the
---
## Page 2
case remanded to the notified officer for deciding afresh the case of the petitioners after giving them an opportunity to be heard. In such circumstances, no comments need be made on any other aspect of the matter. There will be no order as to costs.