P L D 1963 W (PLP)

This is a revision petition of Moula Bakhsh against Addi tional Commissioner, Hyderabad's order, dated 21st September 1962, whereby, virtually on review, he reversed his order, dated 26th May 1961 on the appeal of Haji Hamid Ali in which he had confirmed C. O. S. B.'s order, dated 3rd November 1960, putting the four acres of the land in dispute to auction between the parties. The Additional Commissioner has in his impugned review orders, debarred the petitioner from bidding in auction on the ground that, at the time when he recorded his offer on 23rd November 1959, he was holding 302 acres of land and was, therefore, not entitled to get any land, as his holding was in excess of 240 acres. In view of the fact that strangely enough, there is no provision for review in the Sind Land Revenue Code, the Additional Commissioner ought not to have reversed his own order, dated 26th May 1961. If he felt that that order required modification, he ought to have referred the case to the B, O. R. for necessary amendments in the exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.

2. I have carefully considered what the proper orders in this case should be. During the course of the hearing one Umed Ali submitted a miscellaneous application pleading that he had only recently come to know that the four acres in dispute, which were lying in his and his co‑sharer's direct Mohag, were being disposed of and, as no publicity was made among the Mohagdars, he would not offer for the same and that he may be made a party to these proceedings. I allowed this prayer in view of the fact that I consider that the condition:: obtaining in rural areas are such and the special. interests of Mohagdars and people, who have developed the lands on eksalo leases, arc so well recognised in the Southern Zone, that publicity through Schedules cannot necessarily be taken to be adequate notice to these classes, whose preferential claims require satisfactory service on them unless there are reasons for believing that they are in the know the land in their possession or in their mohagh is up for disposal. Although there is no provision in the Sind Land Revenue Code as to what would constitute adequate service of notice on the rural classes, yet in R. O.'s Circular No. 1949, dated 20th May 1942 in paragraph No. 4 it is provided that‑ "if such an offer (sic) for. the purchase of a small S. No. or of chokri less than four acres) is received, the barrage Mukhtiarkar should on his own initiative, ask the Mohagdars if they want the land, and if they do, he should submit the papers for orders, and if not, he should make a note on the offer (and also submit the Mohagdars' statement). In the Land Revenue Act 1887, as prevalent in the former Punjab, N.‑W. F. P., Bahawalpur State and Baluchistan areas, the special backward position of rural areas is adequately recog nized in sections and notice through the press, which is recognized under the C. P. C., is not one of the recognised modes of service, either under the Land Revenue or Tenancy Acts. These enact ments, however, recognise substituted service through proclama tion by beat of drum or other customary methods, if personal service cannot be effected. This being the position and the conditions in the Southern Zone being no better than those in the Central and the Northern Zone, I will not be prepared to recognise publicity through Schedules to be adequate publicity on people with preferential claims or whose interest in the land has been duly recognised by Government, unless it is proved that it is within their knowledge that the land is being put up for disposal. In the present case, no such proof or reason to believe has been adduced before me. I must, therefore, hold that failure of the authorities on their own initiative to ask the petitioner, who is admittedly a Mohagdar, if he wants the land in terms of the citation above. is sufficient justification call for interference in revision in order to enable him to offer for the land.

3. The respondents have also claimed Mohag rights. Haji Mir Muhammad respondent No. 1 had claimed this on the basis of his B. No. 40/3. But he has admitted that he paid him first instalment in respect of it on 24th April 1949, and it was fully paid up in 1954. As against this Haji Hamid Ali, respondent No. 2 has claimed Mohag on the basis of his S. Nos. 42/1 and 4, and 40/1 and

2. He, however, admits that these were purchased by him in 1955. The instructions of B. O. R. contained in Board's order No. 1158/60‑1006‑PIV, dated 4‑4‑1960 are to the effect that : ‑ (i) the mohag rights, as judicially defined, should be accepted according to the previous practice only in favour of those per sons who hold the land in the area for over 10 years on or before 31‑7‑1957. (iii) this concession would apply to old indigenous cultivators for whose sake Bombay Government had introduced special concessions, and will not apply to new allottees of evacuee lands. In view of these instructions the claims of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to the grant of the land on Mohag basis fall to the ground. Umed Ali, petitioner and his lady co‑sharer have got clear Mohag rights from their S. No. 41/3, 46/1 & 2 and 47/2 on two complete sides of the four acres in dispute, They are, therefore, entitled to its grant on Mohag basis, being the only Mohagdars left in the field.

4. In the result, therefore, the revision by Maula Bakhsh fails. In the exercise of my revisional jurisdiction suo moto, I set aside the orders of the Courts below and grant the land to Umed Ali petitioner on the basis of his Mohag claim. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.