ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH
AT SUKKUR
C. P. No. D – 3569 of 2013
|
Date
of hearing |
Order with signature
of Judge |
Hearing of case
(priority)
1.
For orders on office
objection at Flag-A
2.
For hearing of CMA No.3192/2015
(S/A)
3.
For hearing of main case
(Notice issued to respondent No.4)
26.09.2018
Syed Bahadur Ali
Shah, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Memon, State Counsel.
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Petitioners claim that their qabooli land was
acquired by Pakistan Armed Forces for establishing shooting range. In exchange
of their qabooli land, alternate pieces of land were
given, which alleged allotment orders are available at page 27 to 85 with
petition. They claim that these are only the allotment orders and physical
possession of the land was never given.
2. We enquired from the counsel as to
whether this petition could be maintainable after almost seventeen (17) years
of the allotment orders in exchange of their qabooli land, he submits that the
petitioners were pursuing their matter before the revenue authorities. We have
also come across an order of the Commissioner dated 19.04.2000, whereby the
petitioners’ alternate land stood cancelled. It is claimed by petitioners that
they were condemned unheard.
3. The State Counsel does not dispute that
the land was acquired for the military purpose, however, all he says was that
the alternate land allotted to the petitioners was canceled on suo moto jurisdiction. He also concedes
that before passing an order for cancellation of the alternate land, the
petitioners were not heard. He has not been able to give any justification as
to why on merit, the alternate land was cancelled.
4. If the land of the petitioners was
acquired, they ought to have been compensated before it was occupied by the
Armed Forces in terms of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, either in terms
of money or exchange of land. This observation is without prejudice to any defence as to entitlement of petitioners over the land
acquired which is claimed as qabooli. The reason assigned by the Commissioner while
cancelling the intermediary land grant to the petitioners was that there were
other khatedars
as well and, hence, the intermediary grant of 31.12.1995 was cancelled. Without
observing as to whether the petitioners were enjoying any qabooli land, we deem it appropriate that the cancellation of the land on suo moto jurisdiction, without hearing the petitioners,
was without justification. In case the land of the petitioners was acquired,
they ought to have been compensated either in terms of money or alternate land,
and the cancellation too should not have been done without notice to
petitioners.
5. We, therefore, in the interest of
justice, and as agreed by all in attendance, allow the petitioners to move an
application either for reconsidering their alternate land grant or the
compensation against their qabooli land,
which application shall be considered by the Commissioner or any other forum
having jurisdiction in this regard, without being influenced by the order dated
19.04.2000 as their rights were prejudiced without hearing them. In any
case, if any such application is preferred by the petitioners, then the delay
in filing an application may be considered sympathetically especially in terms
of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. However, this order shall not absolve
respondent / Commissioner to ascertain title of petitioners over qabooli land.
6. The petition stands disposed of along with the listed
application in the above terms.
J U D G E
J U D G E
Abdul Basit