Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

1989 M L D 4437

1989 M L D 4437

[Karachi]

Before Ajmal Mian, CJ. and Abdul Rahim Kazi, J

AYUB--Petitioner

Versus

FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, RAWALPINDI and 2 others--Respondents

Constitutional Petition No.D-426 of 1981, decided on 21th, February. 1989.

Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115)--

---Para. 29--Grant of land to landless haris--Respondent was granted land but same was cancelled without prior notice served on him--No default was made in payment of instalments and hence no ground for cancellation was available--Land was subsequently allotted to petitioner--Revision filed by respondent was rejected by Land Commissioner--Federal Land Commission, however, accepted same and maintained order of allotment in favour of respondent--Held, cancellation of grant of land in favour of respondent without serving on him a notice was without jurisdiction and unwarranted--Order of Federal Land Commission restoring land to respondent was upheld.

Muhammad Ali Sheikh for Petitioner.

Mohammad Osman Abro for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 21st February, 1989.

JUDGMENT

AJMAL MIAN, C.J.--This petition is directed against an order dated 15-1-1981 passed by respondent No.l, restoring the grant of Survey No. 420, hereinafter referred to as the survey number, situated in deh Pir Wah, Taluka Tando Mohammad Khan, District Hyderabad in favour of respondent No.3.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are, that the survey number was resumed under MLR 64 m 1958-59 as it was part of jagir land belonging to late Mir Bande Ali Khan Talpur. After the above resumption the survey number was granted to respondent No.3 in pursuance of a scheme framed under MLR 64 for the grant of land to land-less haris. It appears that in 1967 the above grant was cancelled as it was treated- that respondent No.3 had abandoned the survey number. It appears that after the promulgation of MLR 115 the survey number was included in the schedule and was put in open Katcheri for allotment and was in fact allotted to the present petitioner on 23-11-1978. Respondent No.3 having come to know about the above grant tiled an appeal before the Deputy Land Commissioner which was dismissed by him by his order dated 17-7-1979. After that respondent No.3 filed a revision before the Land Commissioner Hyderabad which was also dismissed on 25-11-1979 on the ground that no legal point was raised. It appears that respondent No.3 filed another revision before respondent No.2 which was dismissed on 17-8-1980 on the ground that the same was not competent. After that respondent No.3 approached respondent No.l who by his impugned order set aside the grant in favour of the petitioner and restored the survey number to respondent No.3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order, has filed the present petition.

3. In support of the above petition, Mr. Mohammad Ali Sheikh learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the third revision was not competent as two earlier revisions were already dismissed. He has further submitted that even otherwise the grant of the survey number in favour of petitioner could not have been cancelled as the same was granted in open katcheri after its inclusion in the schedule under the scheme framed under MLR 115.

On the other hand Mr. Mohammad Osman Abro learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 has submitted that the cancellation of the grant in favour of respondent No.3 was without jurisdiction in-as-much as no notice prior to the cancellation was served and secondly, factually there was no default in payment of the instalments and hence no ground 'for cancellation was available.

4. From the order dated 25-I1-1979 passed by the Land Commissioner Hyderabad and also from the impugned order, it is evident that factually the petitioner was not served with any show-cause notice prior to cancellation. It is also evident that respondent No.l has recorded finding of fact after verification from the record that there was no default committed by respondent No.3 in payment of the instalments. In this view of the matter, the cancellation of the grant of the survey number in favour of respondent No.3 was without jurisdiction and unwarranted. In our view, respondent No.1 under para 29 of the MLR 115 had the requisite power to review and order in exercise of his revisions jurisdiction which was without jurisdiction or was in violation of some provision of law. No exception, can, therefore, be taken, to the impugned order

The petition is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs

M.Y.H./A-605/K

Petition dismissed.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant