P L D 1963 W (PLP)

(b) Practice

‑ Appellate Authorities to sign their orders. Ali Nawaz for Petitioner. This is a revision petition from Muhammad Hashim son of Ghulam Muhammad against the order dated 1‑7‑1960, of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, whereby he confirmed the order of the R. O. allotting the land in dispute measuring 16 acres only lo the respondent as a landless Hari. The Additional Commissioner has mentioned in his order which incidentally is signed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hyderabad "By order", that the appeal is time‑barred. The counsel for the appellant states that he was not heard, either by the R. O. or by the Additional Commissioner, and that he filed the appeal within time as soon as he got to know of the orders passed in absentia. He claims that his appeal was, therefore, within time. I must confess that I am not at all happy at the disposal of appeals without hearing the parties ; particularly where counsel have been engaged, as in the present case. Sind Land Revenue Code under section 196 allows parties to engage counsels and, where these have been engaged and fees have been paid, nothing can create greater sense of harassment and heart‑burning than the fact that an Appellate Authority should dispose of appeals on files virtually in camera on office nothings, without parties or their counsels being given an opportunity to be heard. More over, I have in my numerous orders, disapproved of the practice of Assistant Commissioners signing the appellate orders "By orders" as in this case. The Honourable Judges of the High Court and their Lordships of the Supreme Court sign their own orders, as also do MM. B. R. and Commissioners of other Divisions, except in the Southern Zone. There is, therefore, no reason why any Revenue Appellate Authorities should consider it beneath their dignity to sign their orders themselves. I hope this practice will be discontinued and the normal form adopted by all Judicial Tribunals followed. In so far as the merits of the present cases are concerned, I find myself in agreement with the learned Revenue Officers below. The petitioner, who is an owner of 40 acres, has been given 47.37 acres by the R. O. in his mohag. The grant in dispute made to the respondent, who is a Hari, is of 16 acres only and is in the extreme and most distant corner, away from the Goth. The petitioner states that disputes are likely to arise over irriga tion water as the petitioner will be in the upper reach of the water course. After a scrutiny of the map, I do not think this objection has much force. The petitioner says he would have no objection if the respondent is given 16 acres of land else where in the same S. No. out of the area granted to himself. I do not find any force in his reasoning, as objection would then be raised by some other, Khatedar on the same ground. There should, however, be no objection if the petitioner can make the respondent agree to ‑a mutual exchange of actual grants to them out of the unassessed No.

129. With these observations, I dismiss the petition in limine. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.