1985 PLP 1794 (SCMR)

Fazal‑i‑Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st April, 1985. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑ This petition (Civil Petition No. 75‑R of 1976) is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Sind High Court, dated 24‑2‑1976 passed in Constitutional Petition No. 21 of 1969. This petition has had a somewhat chequered history. It came up before this Court on 2‑11‑1976 and a notice was issued to the respondents for the 16th November, 1976, directing them to appear and show cause why the petition for leave to appeal should not be converted into an appeal and disposed of as such. Nobody appeared on the said date and a Bench of this Court consisting of Salahuddin Ahmad, Muhammad Gul and Dorab Patel, JJ., being of the view that notice had been served upon the respondents proceeded to convert the petition into an appeal and allowed it in terms of its order, dated 22‑12‑1976. However, a review petition was preferred against this order (C.R.P. No. 33‑R of 1977) pointing out that in view of the non appearance of the respondents before the Court it could not be brought to the notice of the parties that the averment contained in the order of the Chief Land Commissioner, dated 19‑12‑1968 to the effect that the parties had been heard which was accepted as correct by this Court in its order, dated 22‑12‑1976, was in fact, not correct. This plea was found to be correct and the order of this Court, dated 22‑12‑1976 was recalled and the petition (C.P. No. 75‑R of 1976) directed to be placed before the petition bench, vide order, dated 14‑3‑1982. Hence, the said petition has again been put up for consideration. We have heard Mr. Iftikhar Ali Shaikh on behalf of the petitioners and Ch. Fazal‑i‑Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record on behalf of the respondents in pursuance of the caveat filed by him. We find that the order of the High Court impugned in this petition proceeded on an agreed premises which is evident from the following observations contained in the order of the High Court: "Many contentions were canvassed by the counsel for the parties but both of them are agreed that in deciding the revision application, the Chie Land Commissioner did not provide an opportunity to the persons who claimed to have obtained land on partition of being heard and therefore there was disregard to sub‑rule (3) of rule 12 of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959 which not only renders the order passed in revision e nullity but all other orders founded thereon of no legal effect." (Underlining is ours). It was pursuant to the above agreed position that the constitutional petition was allowed by the High Court and it was directed that the revision preferred before the Chief Land Commissioner would be deemed to be pending and should be decided according to law, after hearing the parties. This position has been further clarified by this Court in its order, dated 14‑3‑1982. We do not, therefore, think that this is a fit case for interference. This petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed hereby. M.I. Petition dismissed.