1987 PLP 1082 (MLD)

Kazi Khursheed Mustafa, General Attorney for Respondent. As the three cases mentioned above are directed against the two orders of the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad dated 10‑11‑1980 wherein the holding of Mst. Saleh Khatoon had been the subject of dispute, they have been heard together and disposed of by this single order. The brief history of the case is that Mst. Saleh Khatoon was not a declarant under the Land Reforms Regulation 1.972, but the tenants of her lands, who are petitioners in cases Nos.l and 3 above, filed complaints against her that she was guilty of concealing her holding and had violated the provisions of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. An inquiry was held by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, in the matter who found her holding within the prescribed ceiling of 12,000 Plus. The petitioners in cases 1 and 3 above filed appeals before the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad who rejected them vide the impugned orders dated 10‑11‑1980, in Appeals Nos.1694‑HVC (LR‑15)/79 and 1674‑HVC (LR‑115)/79. The Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, has decided three appeals under the Sind Land Reform Rules, 1977, against orders dated 8‑5‑1979 and 15‑5‑1_979, passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, while determining the holding of declarant Mst. Saleh Khatoon under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, 1977. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and have perused the record of the case as well as the Revenue record. A miscellaneous application was pending before the Senior Member, Board of Revenue in which the allocation orders issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad in case of Mst. Saleh Khatoon for lands purchased by her under MLR‑89/91 were challenged. That case has been decided and the complaint of the tenants declared baseless and frivolous and Additional Deputy Commissioner I, Hyderabad has been directed to finalize the case of Mst. Saleh Khatoon. It has been argued by the learned counsel for Mst. Saleh Khatoon that petitioners in cases Nos.l and 3 have no locus‑standi in the case and should not be heard. He has further urged that the grant of the resumed land to the tenant by the Assistant Land commissioner, while Mst. Saleh Khatoon's appeal was pending for decision before the Commissioner was patently illegal and conferred no right upon the tenants to become a party in this case or to deprive her of her basic right to exercise choice in respect of the land to be surrendered. It is further argued that the land already sold by her has been included in her holding for the purpose of an in reforms, and thus land not belonging to her has been ordered to be resumed from her. She has also claimed banjar concession in respect of certain survey numbers, which is stated to have been denied to her. The Land Commissioner in deciding the appeals under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 has rejected the case of the tenants and endorsed the orders of the Deputy Land Commissioner dated 8‑5‑1979 declaring her holding to be below the permissible limit of 12,000 Plus. It is alleged by the learned counsel for the tenants that the Additional Deputy Commissioner No.l, had no powers to allow Mst. Saleh Khatoon to purchase surrendered land when the Rehabilitation laws had been repealed in 1974. This argument was rebutted by the representative of the Department, who explained that the surrendered land was allowed to be purchased under MLR 89/91, which are still in force and the Rehabilitation laws are not relevant to the case of Mat. Saleh Khatoon. After hearing the parties and, examining the record including the two impugned judgments of the Land Commissioner Hyderabad, IIA am convinced that there is no ground to interfere with these orders which are maintained. This judgment is announced and the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad to be informed of the decision for early implementation of the orders of the Deputy Land Commissioner, dated 8‑5‑1979 and 15‑5‑1979. A.A./221/R Revision dismissed.