' This is a revision petition against the order dated 28-4-1978 of the Commissioner, Sukkur Division, who maintained the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Jacobabad, dated 23-2-1975.
2. Facts of the case are given in the order dated 4-3-1971 of the Deputy Commissioner Jacobabad and need not be reproduced.
3. Mr. Ghulam Hussain Ansari, Advocate for the petitioner contends that this case is to be treated as a case of mutation. The Deputy Commissioner Jacobabad had passed order under Land Revenue Act and therefore, it was not attracted by para. 5(1) of M. L. R.
70. The petitioner made representation on 11-11-1967 for mutation of Ishata and the same was made by the Mukhtiarkar in favour of the petitioner. The M. L. R. 70 came into force subsequent to that order; hence it is not applicable to the petitioner's case. The counsel further contends that the entire landed property was the self-acquired property of Hasumal as is evident from the civil Court decree of 1941-42. Therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner declaring 252-32 acres as inherited property of Hasumal and thereby cannot be disposed of by will, was not correct. Mr. Hasumal was non-evacuee. He died in Pakistan and the property was self-acquired. Before his death he executed will in favour of the petitioner giving all his land to him. The petitioner is British national and can hold property in Pakistan. Therefore, he could hold the entire land mentioned in the will. In support of his argument, he quoted various rulings.
4. The counsel for the State Mr. Nasrullah Shaikh, on the other hand, contends that the Government of Pakistan issued Notification on 3-6-1971 whereby the West Pakistan Enemy property Management Board directed that 189-24 acres of Agricultural Land belonging to Mohanlal and other heirs of Hasumal deceased who were all enemy subjects shall vest in Additional Custodian Enemy property. In pursuance of that notification the Additional Custodian issued another notification on 19th June, 1971, authorizing Deputy Commissioner, Jacobabad to take further measures as necessary subject to the overall control and authority of the Additional Custodians.
Since the notifications have been issued under M. L. R. 70 vesting the property in the Additional Custodian, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this revision. By no stretch of imagination this can be treated as a case of mutation_ because any contrary decision will nullify the notifications which is not within the competence of this Court. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner holding that the property in question be treated as enemy property and could not be called in question vide para. 5 of M. L. R. 70, was correct. This implication of civil Court decree of 1941-42 could be examined and determined either by the civil Court or by the Custodian of the Enemy property Management Board in whom this property has already been vested.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the relevant record. The main legal point before this Court is whether the notifications issued the Pakistan Government and the Assistant Custodian, dealing with this property as Enemy property and subsequently giving the powers to the Deputy Commissioner to deal with that property subject to the overall control and authority of the Additional Custodian, can be called in question by this Court when M. L.
0. 70 clearly provides a forum for hearing appeals under that Regulation. On-this point I am inclined to agree with the arguments of the Government pleader. The learned Advocate for the petitioner is relying very much on the opinion of the Secretary, Enemy Property Management Board reproduced in the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 15-9-1971. Even these remarks of the Secretary clearly show that under para. 5 of M. L. R. 70 no order in respect of Enemy property can be called in question before any authority except the Tribunal set up under that Regulation. The position being such, I feel that this Court has no jurisdiction and this case cannot be treated as case of mutation as contended by the Advocate for the petitioner.
' The proper forum for appeal is the Custodian and not the Revenue Court as rightly held by the Commissioner, I, therefore reject the revision petition.
Petition rejected.