' MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.-This is a petition directed against the order of Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, dated 2nd February, 1978 in the matter of lands of petitioners whereby the petitioner and others were deprived of the grant of their lands under M. L.
0. 33 in Deh Daluketi, Taluka Halla bearing Nos. 49, 51, 52, 53, 54 and in Deh Noorketi, Taluka Halla bearing Nos. 18 to 22, 27 to 29, 33, 34, 37 to 42, 45 and 48 (total area 219.38 acres). Since the petition is being disposed of on two short grounds that the petitioners were not given notice before the impugned order was passed against them and that the Additional Commissioner was not authorised to cancel the grant, therefore, the complex facts need not be gone into in details. Suffice it to say that in the year 1973-74 Yar Mohammad and Ghulam Mohammad had applied to the Settlement Office, Hyderabad claiming to be successors of one All Bux and requested that the lands in question, at one stage being Qabuli lands of their forefather viz. Ali Bux, may be entered in the record-of-rights in his name and then by Foti Khata Badal be transferred to their name. The said application was endorsed by the Settlement Officer and Secretary, Board of Revenue to the Assistant Commissioner who passed the following order on the same :- "Since the land in question is free from water and it originally belonged to their ancestors, it may be reverted to original owner and such entries made in Revenue Record."
' The petitioners and Ghulam Mohammad continued to be in possession of the lands according to their own statement while according to Forest Department they were in possession of some of the land and it was under growth of trees.
' In 1977, Martial Law Order 33 was promulgated by the M. L. A. Zone 'C' whereby it was provided under para. 2 that any allotment of State land made between 1st day of January 1972 and 4th day of July, 1977 which is not covered by any regular scheme issued under section 10 of Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 or which has been obtained by using, official or political influence etc. Be cancelled by the Board of Revenue or any Officer authorised by it in this behalf. It was, however, provided that no order of cancellation shall be passed. Without giving the allottee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
It is an 'admitted position that the present petitioners are some of the allottees/grantees of these lands and the petitioners have produced the copy of records-of-right Annexure 'I' which shows the five petitioners as the joint owners of this land with Ghulam Mohammad, and it is, therefore, clear that if any action was being taken against the petitioner under M. L.
0. 33 then notice should have been issued to them. However, we find from the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner on 2nd February, 1978 that only Ghulam Mohammad son of Mohammad Hussain Pathan had been made a party in the proceedings and he was heard by the Additional Commissioner. Although, Ghulam Mohammad is the real brother of 4 present three petitioners but still it cannot be urged that notice to Ghula Mohammad was a sufficient notice to the present petitioners and, therefore, we are clearly of the view that since the impugned order has deprived the petitioners of their rights in these lands without any notice to them, therefore, the said order was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice as well as against the definite provision of M. L. O. 33 which had provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and it was therefore without any lawful authority and is hereby set aside. Mr. Imam Ali Kazi had also challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner as being without jurisdiction. He argued that para. 2 of M. L. O. 33 had authorised only Board of Revenue or any Officer authorised by it pass the order of cancellation. In this case we find that the Board of Revenue had authorised only the Commissioner, Hyderabad to proceed in the matter and there was no authority delegated to the Additional Commissioner in this regard. This point was specifically taken in para. 12(b) of the petition and the same has not been refuted to or replied by the other side and consequently, we have to presume and infer that the contention of the petitioners is corer that there was no authority vested in the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad to pass the impugned order. Consequently the order of Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad dated 2-2-1978 is to be pct. Aside on this ground as well.
' Mr. Abbas Farooqui wanted to argue that the petitioners had no rights in the lands, he also submitted that the Assistant Commissioner had no right to allot the land in question to the petitioners. Mr. Imam Ali Kazi asserts that the petitioners are the owners of the land. However, we are not dealing with these questions as the petition is being allowed on technical points of lack of authority of respondent No, 3 and lack of notice. Mr. Abbas Farooqui has drawn out attention that M. L.
0. 33 had been repealed and had been replaced by Nil. L. O. 61 which in itself was later on amended.
However, it is not necessary to consider those provisions of law because of the fact that the impugned order was made on 2-2-1978, under M. L.
0. 33 which was in force at that time while M. L.
0. 61 which repealed M. L.
0. 33 was not given retrospective effect and came into force only on 2nd May, 1978, when the impugned action had already been taken and the present writ petition had been filed by the petitioners on 14-3-1978 and it was therefore pending at the time when M. L.
0. 61 was promulgated. Therefore, this petition has to be decided in accordance with the law as in force on 14-3-1978, because the repeal of M. L.
0. 33 did not have any effect on the pending proceedings. Petition is, therefore, allowed. It would be however open to the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings, if they so desire and law allowed them.