P L D 1966 W (PLP)

These twelve revisions have been filed against orders dated the 24th June 1959, passed by the Land Commissioner, Hydera bad,, who rejected the appeals filed by the petitioners. The facts of the case are that all the twelve petitioners put in Forms LC‑I and LC‑II under the provisions of para. 15 of the Martial Law Regulation No.

64. The Deputy Land Commissioner scrutinised the forms and discovered that all the petitioners were not existing owners as entered in the revenue records, and did not, therefore, attract the provisions of the Martial Law Regulation No.

64. Forms LC‑I and LC‑II put in by them were filed. All the petitioners went in appeal to the Land Commissioner who rejected their appeals. Hence these twelve revisions. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. His main grievance is that the Deputy Land Commissioner fixed the 29th of June 1959, as the date on which the petitioners would be heard, with regard to Forms LC‑I and LC‑II put in by them. Instead of waiting for that date, the Deputy Land Commissioner passed orders earlier in absence of the petitioners. No opportunity was given to them for putting their cases before the Deputy Land Commissioner. There is an additional grievance that when appeals were put up to the Land Commissioner, the petitioners were given no op portunity for putting their case before the learned Land Commis sioner who rejected their appeals summarily. Out of the twelve petitioners, only the name of Vishandas appears in a copy of mutation shown to me by the learned counsel for the petitioners. This mutation was decided in 1935‑

36. No copies of the revenue records have been shown to me in which this mutation may have been incorporated but in the case of Vishandas it appears only fair that he should have been given an opportunity of arguing his case before the Deputy Land Commissioner as well as the learned Land Commissioner. As regards the remaining eleven petitioners, their names do not appear in the revenue records. It was not necessary for the Deputy Land Commissioner or the Land Commissioner to hear them personally. Under the instructions only those persons were to be treated as existing owners whose names were entered as owners in the revenue records. During the scrutiny of the Forms LC‑I and LC‑II put in by the petitioners, it was revealed that the names of all the other eleven' petitioners did not find a place in the revenue records. In these circumstances, there was no question of hearing any of the other eleven petitioners. At any rate, I have now heard the learned counsel for all these twelve petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners has requested that all these twelve revisions should be accepted and the cases should be remanded for reconsideration and decision on merits to the Deputy Land Commissioner and the Land Commissioner. This request is reasonable so far as Vishandas is concerned whose name finds a place in the mutation mentioned above. So far as the rest of the petitioners are concerned, it is neither necessary nor any useful purpose would be served by remanding the cases to the Deputy Land Commissioner and; the Land Commissioner. In these circumstances while I reject the following eleven revisions:‑

(1) Savitri v. State (Revision No. 32 of 1958‑59). (2) Ganga Ram v, State (Revision No. 33 of 1958‑59). (3) Dev Raj Mal v. State (Revision‑No. 34 of 1958‑59). (4) Kamoo v. State (Revision No. 35 of 1958‑59). (5) Rattanchand v. State (Revision No. 36 of 1958‑59). (6) Murli v. State (Revision No. 37 of 1958‑59). (7) Chandi Bai v. State (Revision No. 38 of 1958‑59), (8) Dhanonmal v. State (Revision No. 39 of 1958‑59). (9) Mst. Sati Bai v. State (Revision No. 41 of 1958‑59). (10) Mrs. Padi Bai v. State (Revision No. 30 of 1958‑59). (11) Tulsidas v. State (Revision No. 31 of 1958‑59). I accept the Revision No. 40 of 1958‑59 Vishandas v. State and remand the case for reconsideration by the Deputy Land Commis sioner, Tharparkar. S. Q. Revision accepted.