ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has held that a fair trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 10A of the Constitution, and that courts and quasi-judicial authorities are bound to analyse the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether this indispensable right was afforded or denied.
A three-member bench headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar heard the Punjab government’s appeal against a Lahore High Court’s verdict.
The judgment, authored by Justice Mazhar, stated that the principles of natural justice require that a person against whom action is taken must be afforded a fair opportunity to be heard, provide an explanation, and contest the allegations before being found guilty and condemned.
It also said that where any authority regulates and performs its affairs under a statute which provides the compliance of the principle of natural justice in a straightforward modus then application of natural justice should have been adhered to stringently even if the statute is maintaining muteness on the right to fair trial, the canons of natural justice should be lived up to sanguine to the elementary rule of law that no decision which is affecting the right of any person should be taken without providing an opportunity of being heard.
The judgment noted that in the instant matter, before passing an adverse order of cancellation under Section 30 (2) of the Punjab Colonisation Government Lands Act, 1992, though the Board of Revenue was required to afford a reasonable opportunity of showing cause before passing an adverse order, neither any notice was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded before cancellation of land on unilateral action with a solo move or initiative.
According to the facts, respondent No.1 (Bashir Rulya) filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction asserting the ownership of land measuring 20 kanals 10 marlas of Chak No. 89/NB, Tehsil & District Sargodha. He pleaded that land measuring 50 kanals and 5 Marlas was allotted to Muhammad Yousaf (respondent No. 4) vide order No. 650; thereafter, he transferred the suit land in favour of respondent No.1.
After transfer by sale, the mutation was also sanctioned in the revenue record. Subsequently, the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab cancelled the allotment of Muhammad Yousaf on the ground that the land allotted to him fell within the prohibited area within five miles radius of the municipal limit and thus the allotment was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation; hence the civil suit was filed. The Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 21.4.1992, decreed the suit.
The defendants, appellants/petitioners in this case, filed the appeal before the District Judge, Sargodha, which was allowed vide his judgment and decree dated 24.11.1994 and dismissed the suit of the respondent No.1.
Ultimately, the respondent No.1 invoked the Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court and, vide impugned judgment, the High Court, while allowing the revision application, set aside the appellate judgment and decree dated 24.11.1994 passed by the District Judge, Sargodha, and restored the judgment and decree dated 21.04.1992 by the learned Civil Judge.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026