P L D (PLP)

2. The facts of the case are that the disputed S. No. was granted to the petitioner in the Land Reforms Scheme. The grant was cancelled due to non‑payment of instalments. The land was thereafter disposed of in auction in January 1969, and the respondent offered the highest bid but the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, refused to confirm the auction vide his letter No. 216‑G/Rev/65.TP, dated 4‑8‑1969 on the ground that the area of the lot was below subsistence holding and the respondent was not the land owner of the dell as required by condition No. 4 of the conditions of the auction. The respondent subsequently represented to the Land Commissioner that he held land in the deh and that the auction may be confirmed. The petitioner also represented to the Land Commissioner, that he had paid up all the arrears and that land may lie restored to him. The Land Commissioner rejected the request of the petitioner for restoration of the land and confirmed the auction in favour of the respondent vide his 2 orders dated 8‑4‑1971.

3. The counsel for the petitioner urged the following points:‑ (i) This disputed land stood granted to the petitioner. In 1964 there were floods in the area and the petitioner could not pay the instalments of land and land was cancelled in 1966. There was no compliance of paras. 33 & 34 of the Sale Scheme. (ii) The petitioner was served with notice to pay the arrears by July 1970 and he deposited arrears on 10‑5‑1970. The land was restored to him and sale agreement executed on 30‑7‑1970. (iii) The land was put to auction in January 1969 but the auction was not confirmed by Land Commissioner vide his order dated 4‑8‑1969 on the ground that the lot was below subsistence holding and the auction was not confirmed to the land holders of the deb. Sohrab the auction purchaser taut in an application on 5‑5‑! 970 to the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad and the Land Commissioner has confirmed the auction on 8‑4‑1971 and refused the restoration of grant to the petitioner. First order dated 4‑8‑1969 was passed by Mr. Wasim the then Land Commissioner, Hyderabad and second order has been passed by Mr. Muhammad Yusuf, they present Land Commissioner, Hyderabad. Permission of the Chief Land Commissioner was not obtained by the Land Commissioner for review of the order of his predecessor as required by rule 11 (a)(1) and 6) of the Land Reform Rues 1959 and the second order is therefore, defective on that account. (iv) The Land Commissioner had knowledge that the present petitioner was necessary party but he was not made party when the second order confirming the auction, was passed. (v) The review petition before, the Land Commissioner was also time‑barred.

4. The counsel for the respondent conceded that the order of the Land Commissioner confirming the auction in favour of the respondent was not maintainable as he had thereby reviewed the previous order dated 4‑8‑1969 passed by the then Land Commissioner, whereby the auction, was not confirmed and that this could be done by the Land Commissioner only after obtaining permission of the Chief Land Commissioner but the requisite permission was not obtained. He, however, stated that he had no objection if the S. No. in question was restored to the peti tioner and requested that instead of S. No., the respondent may be granted adjacent S. Nos. 197, 198 and 199 of the same deh, which are lying vacant and can be granted to the respondent in upgrading scheme.

5. I have considered the arguments of the parties and seen the record. The auction of the disputed land made in favour of the respondent was not confirmed by the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad (Mr. S. M. Wasim, C. S. P.,) vide his order dated 4‑8‑1969. Subsequently the same auction has been confirmed in his favour by the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad. (Mr. Muhammad Yusuf, C. S. P.), vide his order dated 8‑4‑1971. According to rule I1 (1) (a)(i) of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959, the Land Commissioner cannot review an order passed by his predecessor‑in‑office without first obtaining the sanction of the Chief Land Commissioner. In the present case no such sanction was obtained and as such the subsequent order dated 8‑4‑1971 passed by the Land Commissioner confirming the auction is not maintainable and it set aside. The respondent does not stress for confirmation of the auction and has surrendered his rights in favour of the petitioner. The notice dated 22‑1‑1970 issued by tire Deputy Land Commissioner, Tharparkar, to the petitioner indicates that the petitioner was required to pay up the arrears up to 31st July 1970. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has cleared off all the arrears. The land may, therefore, be restored to the petitioner. If, however, the petitioner has not paid the arrears or is still in default, action may be taken against him under para. 33 of the sale scheme for rectification of the default afresh. The request of the respondent for grant of S. Nos. 197, 198 and 199 of the same deh in the upgrading scheme may be disposed of on merits and according to, Government policy and procedure. Order accordingly.