S. A. NUSRAT. J.-We propose to dispose of Constitutional Petitions Nos. 120 and 132 of 1976 by this common judgment as the first petition has been filed by Sardar Taj Muhammad Odho and the other by his wife Mo. Marie Irene, and his son and two daughters and the impugned orders relate to the same lands. The facts relating to the two petitions, separately stated are:-- C. P. No. 120/76
2. That pursuant to the promulgation of M. L. R.-115, the petitioner filed a declaration disclosing the alienations made by him within the prescribed period. According to the rules the papers 'should have been submitted to the Land Commissioner, Sind for determining the bona fides or otherwise of the alienations under paragraph 7 of Land Reforms Regulation. However, instead Syed Ikramuddin, the then Deputy Land. Commissioner, Jacobobad, issued notice to the petitioner for proceeding with the matter under paragraph 8 of the Regulation. It is alleged that without notice to the petitioners an order dated 30-4-73 was passed by Syed Ikramuddin determining the holding of the petitioner under paragraph 8 of the Regulation. The order was accompanied by two Schedules `A' and 'B' indicating the details of land to be retained and resumed respectively out of the holding of the petitioner. In doing so Syed Ikramuddin did not allow any copies of land to be made by the petitioner and the value of the land in terms of Produce Index Units on the basis of soil classification was also not made. Mr. Inayatullah N. Qureshi, the successor of Syed Ikramuddin, having noticed the defect in the order of the latter, sought permission for reviewing the order dated 30-4-73, and on obtaining the same, passed an order dated 16-9-1973 setting aside the order of Syed Ikramuddin. In the meanwhile the case of the petitioner was referred to the Land Commissioner, Sind, for scrutiny under paragraph 7 of the Regulation who, by his order dated 24-1-1974 declared the alienations made by the petitioner to be void.
C. P. No. 152/76
3. The petitioners in the above petition had also disclosed their, holdings of agricultural land on prescribed forms through their attorney. Since the petitioners happened to be out of the country, they could not initially disclose the alienations made by them within the specified period, and on their return, were permitted to file their amended declaration forms. Syed Ikramuddin, as in the case of petitioner Taj Muhammad, by separate four ex parse orders dated 30-4-73 determined the holdings of the petitioners under paragraph 8 of the Regulation. The said orders were revieweJ by Mr. Inayatullah M. Qureshi, after necessary permission, as per four separate orders passed by him on 16-9-73. In the meanwhile the cases of the petitioners were referred to the Land Commissioner, Sind for scrutiny under paragraph 7 of the Regulation.
Their cases, regarding the alienations made by them, therefter came to be agitated before the Chief Land Commissioner, Sind, and the Federal Land Commissioner.
4. After the decision of petitioners' cases, pertaining to the alienations made by them, by the then Land Commissioner, Sind, the respondent No. I issued notice for passing fresh orders under paragraph 8 of the Regulation. They were summoned to appear on 24-8-74 but the hearing had to be postponed because the appeals of the petitioners were still pending before the Chief Land Commissioner, Sind. The cases of the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 were finally decided by the Federal Land Commission on 11-3-76 and the case of the petitioner No. 4 was decided on 16-4-75. The petitioners therefore applied to the revenue authorities and asked for the details of the cultivation figures so as to enable them to avai 1 of concession for Banjar-i--Jadeed and Banjar-i-Qadeem in the proceedings pending before the respon--dent No. 1 under paragraph 8 of the Regulation. As no particulars were futnished by the revenue authorities, the petitioners made an application on 10-2- 75 before the respondent No. 1 who forwarded the same to the Mukhtarkar with his note thereon for doing the needful. The respondent No. 1 fixed the cases for the determination of the holdings of the petitioners on 8-3-75 when the Mukhtiarkar was directed to produce the relevant revenue record.
The Mukhtiarkar, however, did not produce the necessary record and the bearing was adjourned sine die. The petitioners thereafter learnt that the respondent No. 2 was . . . . Holding a Kutchery for disposing of the land of the petitioners resumed under the defunct orders of Syed Ikramuddin dated 30-4-83. However, the disposal of the lands was stayed on the telegraphic request of the petitioners, attorney. The respondent No. 2 again attempted to dispose of the lands in February 1976 when the petitioners' counsel by a registered letter dated 19-2-76 asked the respondent No. 1 to fix a date for the determination of petitioners, holding under paragraph 8 of the Regulation.
However. Ro date of hearing was fixed and the petitioners came to know that the respondent No. 2 intended to dispose of the lands on the. Basis of the orders of Syed Ikramuddin.
5. The petitioners, in both the petitions, have asked for a declaration that no adjudication of their holdings has so far been made in terms of paragraph 8 of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 and they have further asked that the respondent No. 1 be directed to decide their cases in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation.
6. The power to determine individual holdings, after the scrutiny of declaration has been made, is exerciseable by the Deputy Land Commissioner as delegatee of the Sind Land. Commission 'as per Notification No. SLC--1/72/7, issued under paragraph 5 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The declarants are further given an option of making a choice under paragraph 11 of .The Regulation and unless such choice has been made, and the permitted area of land is selected, calculated on the basis of the quality of the land, the area of excess land cannot be determined, much less sold out without going through the said exercise. In the instant case the . Respondents have been acting on the orders of Syed lkramuddin although the same had been set aside on review by Mr. Inayatullah A N. Qureshi. It is also clear that no determination under paragraph 8 of .The Regulation has yet been made after the passing of the orders by Mr. Inayatullah N. Qureshi.
7. 'For the reasons mentioned above the respondent No. 1 is directed to dispose of the petitioners' cases with regard to adjudication of their holdings under paragraph 8 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 according to law. The petitions are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.