1990 PLP 793 (CLC)

"That in view of the facts and grounds submitted above, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to grant relief as under: (A) declare that the orders passed by The respondents resuming the alleged excess holding of the present petitioner without allowing her the right to exercise her option, are void, illegal, without lawful authority and contrary to the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No.115 and the Rules framed thereunder and that the petitioner is entitled to exercise her right of option. (B) declare that the order of resumption passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner was a provisional one and the petitioner's lands could not be allotted in consequence of the said order. (C) direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to exercise her right of option. (D) grant any other further, better relief that this Ilon'blc Court deems tit and proper." The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner who is a childless widow owned and possessed agriculture land situated in Sanghar and Hyderabad districts totalling 21179 PIUs equivalent to 582.28 ghuntas though in para 1 it has been mentioned as 1082.28 acres. Out of the above total holding the petitioner had allegedly gifted certain land to the person mentioned in para 2 of the petition. Upon promulgation of the M.L.R. 115 the petitioner filed declaration wherein she disclosed the sail gifts and after adjusting the land gifted away declared 158.25 acres equivalent 6008 PIUs against maximum limit of 120()0 PIUs. The above gifts were disallowed by the Deputy Land Commissioner by his order dated 25‑7‑1972 upon perusal of the declaration. Thereupon, the petitioner filed appeal before the Chief Land Commissioner Sind who by his order dated 1h‑10‑1972 remanded the case to the Land Commissioner with the direction to decide the case on merits after hearing the petitioner but the Finding that the gifts were void was maintained. It appears that after the remand order the Land Commissioner by his order dated I'‑2‑1973 rejected the appeal. Against the above order the petitioner filed an appeal before Chief Land Commissioner Sind at Hyderabad who also rejected the appeal but allowed the petitioner to avail of the concession, if any, on account of Banjar Qadeem and Banjar Jadid. 1t is the case of the petitioner that she had gone for Haj to Saudi Arabia and during her absence Deputy Land Commissioner Hyderabad passed the order of resumption of 9179 PlUs out of the petitioner's land situated in Dehs mentioned in para.

7. It is alleged that the above order was passed ex pane on 20‑9‑1973. Against the above order the petitioner filed an application for review but the same was dismissed and it was ordered that "The land had .been provisionally resumed under this office No.1.R/24.5 dated 20‑9‑1973. Now final orders will be passed in due course. The resumed area cannot be allotted till final order is passed by me in the matter." The petitioner after that filed Constitutional Petition No.445/1974 in the then High Court of Sindh and Balochistan at Karachi and by its order dated 25‑8‑1974 observed that the petitioner might approach the Federal Land Commission. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a Revision application before the Federal Land Commission which was disposed of by an order dated 11‑3-1975 and the case was remanded to the Addl. Chief Land. Commissioner Sindh with the observation that the minimum necessary dislocation of the allottees be kept, in consideration while allowing a right of option to the petitioner. 1t is the case of the petitioner that the Deputy Land Commissioner again passed an ex parte order and again ordered the resumption of petitioner's land. After that the petitioner approached the Federal Land Commission but the petitioner was told to file appeal before the Land Commissioner which was filed which was dismissed by an order dated 29‑9‑1979 on the ground of limitation. Against the above order the petitioner filed appeal before the Chief Land Commissioner Sindh which was also rejected on the same ground by his order dated 3‑5‑1980. The petitioner has therefore fled the above petition, we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Advocate‑General, Sindh. It appears that the learned Land Commissioner Hyderabad by his aforesaid order dated 29‑4‑1979 declined the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation on the following grounds: "On perusal of the Deputy Land Commissioner's office file, it is observed that a copy of the impugned order was obtained by one Roshan Ali Shah on behalf of the declarant on 7‑12‑1977. However, the appeal was filed on 18‑10‑1977 i.e. after more than 10 months. This shows that the declarant has deliberately filed the present appeal so late. Taking into consideration the facts discussed above, I do not find any cogent ground to admit this appeal for regular hearing. It is accordingly dismissed being badly time‑barred. The above order has been maintained by the Chief Land Commissioner Sindh by impugned order dated 3‑5‑1980. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is nothing on record to indicate that Roshan Ali Shah was acting on behalf of the petitioner for the purpose of obtaining the copy and secondly that in any case the petitioner had filed appeal on 18‑10‑1977 and the obtaining of copy by Roshan Ali Shah on 7‑2‑1988 is of no consequence whereas Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho learned Advocate‑General Sindh points out that the land must have been by now allotted to the sitting Haris and therefore no purpose would be served by remanding the case to the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, or to any other forum as it would prejudice the persons who are not before this Court. From the above‑quoted portion of the order, it is evident that the ground on which the appeal was dismissed for the reason of its being time‑barred does not seem to be plausible. We would therefore remand the case, to the Land Commissioner Hyderabad Division with the direction that he may hear the A petitioner and in case the land in question has not yet been disposed of in favour of the Haris the petitioner may be given option under para 11 of M.L.R. 115 after hearing the petitioner and the department and to the extent to which land is available. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. M.Y.H/A‑659/K Case rem