1980 PLP 1316 (CLC)

Date of hearing : 29th August, 1979. S. A. NUSRAT, J.-This petition is directed against the order of the respondent No. 1 dated 28th December, 1976 passed in exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction tinder paragraph 29 of Land Reforms Regula tion, 1972.

2. The brief facts as are relevant for the disposal of this petition, are that the peti4over No. 1 made oral gift of 262.31 acres of land, situated in Deh Kandri Rayati (82-13) Deh Kandri Jagir (223-24) and Deh Gono (50-8) taluka Tandu Bego, Badin, in favour of his daughters, petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 herein, on 8th January, 1971. He retained only 46.33 acres in Deh Kandri Rayati for himself. Latter, however, realsing that retention of some latid for himself may constitute violation of M.L.R. 64, the petitioner No. 1, on the same date further alienated by way of oral lift aforesaid area of land also in favour of his son Mir Sikandar. The gift favour of Mir Sikandar is not, however, subject matter of this petition alleged that all the gifts, as aforesaid, were accepted on behalf of the donees by Mir Mushtaq, the brother of the petitioner, as the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 happened to be purdahnashin ladies. The petitioner No. 1 made a statement with regard to the above-mentioned gift before the Mukh iarkar Tando Bago who verified and- sanctioned the transaction and ordered mutation of relevant revenue record. It is stated that the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 have been paying .land revenue and other taxes in respect of the gifted land ever since 8th January, 1971 and photostat copies of receipts and bills of assessment have been appended to this Petition. The petitioner No. 1 had also purchased a tractor from one Pir Sharafuddin as per receipt dated 10th April, 1971. However, the tractor was not transferred in the name of the p6titioner, as Pir Sharafuddin had yet to clear the loan taken from Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan.

3. On the promulgation of M.L.R.115, the petitioner No. l submitted the required declaration disclosing the aforesaid alienations which had taken place during the crucial period i.e. between 1st March, 1967 to 21st December, 1971. The said declaration came to be scrutinised by the Land Commissioner, Sind and was found to be in order as per order dated 30th September, 1972. The Land Commissioner, however, invalidated certain other alienations made by the petitioner No. 1 including the gift made in favour of Mir Sikandar Ali. Subsequently by another order dated 28th December, 1972 the learned Land Commissioner validated some other alienations which had been made in favour of petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 in view of the order of the Additional Member Board of Revenue Sind dated 4tb November, 1972. The holding of the petitioner No. 1 was then determined by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad on 17th May 1973 and after excluding the alienated area allowed by the Land Commis sioner, Sind the excess land was resumed. On 25th October, 1974, the peti tioner No. 1 was served with a notice by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad that the Chairman, Federal Land Commission had decided to examine the case afresh in exercise of his suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Paragraph 29 of M. L. R. 115 and in this connection he was called upon to appear before the learned Chairman on 31st October, 1974. The notice did not mention any ground for the exercise of his suo motu revisional jurisdiction. The Petition specifically mentions that the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 were not served with any notice and were not heard. Later the impugned order was passed by the learned respondent No. I and it is alleged that information with regard to the same was received by the Petitioners sometime in April, 1977.

4. The impugned order has been challenged, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioners 2 to 4 were not served with any notice regarding pro ceedings before the respondent No. 1 and as such their case want no considered individually and inasmuch as the order affected their valuable rights; they were condemned unheard in violation of the rule of natural justice. Reliance in this connection was placed on the proviso to paragraph 29 of M.L.R. 115 which lays down that no order shall be passed under the said paragraph revising or modifying an order affecting any person unless such person was given an opportunity of being heard.

5. The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit to the petition and in reply to the allegation that the petitioners No. 2 to 4 were not served with any notice of suo motu revision their reply is as under :- "13(a) The contents are denied it is asserted that petitioner No. (i) did receive notice for and on behalf of the pardahnashin ladies, petitioners Nos. 2 to 4, as their ladies, petitioners Nos. 2 to 4, as their father, as specified in the impugned order." From the above reply it stands confirmed that the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 were not served with any notice and service of notice on the petitioner Not l, was considered sufficient for the reason that the petitioners Nos, 2 to 4 were pardanashin ladies. The petitioners,, No, 2 to 4 had acquired valuable interest in the gifted land, their names appeared in the record of rights and the orders sought to be interfered with by the learned respondent No. 1 stood in their favour. The proviso to paragraph 29 of M.L.R. 1972 lays down that no order under the said paragraph shall be passed revis ing or modifying an order affecting any person unless such person has been afforded an opportunity of being heard. This requirement not only envisages notice but also requires that the person concerned should be given an oppor tunity of being heard. 1n the circumstances the impugned order was obvi ously passed without due compliance with the requirement of paragraph 2 of M. L.R. 115 itself which was prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction under the said paragraph. Mr. Sabir Hussain Rehmani, learned counsel for the respondents, was unable to controvert this Legal objection in the face of the admission contained in the counter-affidavit.

6. In the result the impugned order of the learned respondent No. 1 dated 28th December, 1976 is declared as having been passed without lawful authority and of no legal consequence and the same stands quashed. However, it will be open to the respondents to proceed afresh under paragraph 29 of the Regulation, if so advised; after giving notice and affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners The petition thus succeeds but there will be no order as to costs. ' M. Y. M. Petition allowed.