1. ' ABDUL HAFBEZ MEMON, J.-The brief facts are that the petitioner declarant filed her declaration under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, wherein she disclosed her holding of land as 399.22 acres, which included two alienations of total area of 280.24 acres made by her to her two grand sons by way of gifts during the specified period. The Land Commissioner, Sind, however declared the said gift alienations as void on the ground that the same had been made to grand sons who did not qualify as heirs specified under the Regulation and were thus hit by the Regulation, and appeal filed before the Chief Land Commissioner against the said order also failed. The petitioner thereafter made an application to the Chief Land Commissioner seeking permission to file, belatedly, form L. R. VII for claiming area on account of her owning a tube-well in terms of para. 8
(2) of the Regulation, as she had failed to file the form before the date viz. 20th August, 1972, prescribed by the Sind Land Commission vide its Notification dated 7th August, 1972. The Chief Land Commissioner granted the permission which was communicated to the petitioner by the Secretary. Sind Land Commission vide his letter dated 10th April, 1973. The Deputy Land Commissioner thereafter determined the petitioners, holding as 13525 P. I. Us. And after considering her entitlement to the additional area of 2000 P. I Us. On account of her owning a tube-well allowed her to retain the entire area of 13585 P. I. Us. As the same fell below the permissible ceiling of 14000 P. I. Us. Subsequently, on the report of the Inspection Team, the 0. S. D. Federal Land Commission, examined the petitioner's case in exercise of his suo motu revisional jurisdiction under paragraph 29 of the Regulation and held that in view of the decision of the Sind Land Commission dated 27th February, 1974, that all claims for tube-well/tractor concession filed after 20th August, 1972, prescribed by the Sind Land Commission, were to be rejected, the petitioner was not entitled to the tube-well concession. We accordingly withdrew the concession and directed the Deputy Land Commissioner to resume the excess area equivalent to 1585 P. I. Us. And allowed the petitioner to retain the remaining 12000 P. I. Us. Permissible under the Regulation. Hence this petition.
2. ' Mr. Imam Ali Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner having filed the Form L. R. VII belatedly after obtaining permission from 'the Chief Land Commissioner, the Deputy Land Commissioner had rightly allowed her entitlement to the tube-well concession, and the 0 S. D acted without lawful authority in revoking it. Having so contended, the learned counsel very fairly pointed out that he had raised the precise contention before another Division Bench in Constitutional Petition No, D-739 of 1976 filed in the similar circumstances, but his contention was rejected by the D. B. And the petition was dismissed ; As such, the learned counsel submitted, he had nothing more to add in the present petition.
3. Reading of the judgment in the afore cited Constitution Petition would indeed show that precisely, the same contention, as is raised in the present petition, was urged therein by the same learned counsel before the D. B. Who however, rejected it by taking the view that the Sind Land Commission having by notification prescribed 20th August, 1972, as the last date for filing form L. R. VII for claiming tractor/tube-well concession, the Chief Land Commissioner had no power to extend the date by allowing the declarant to file the said form belatedly beyond that date, and upheld the order of the 0. S. D. Federal Land Commission revoking the tractor concession earlier granted to the declarant on the basis of such Form L. R. VII, belatedly filed by him with the permission of the Chief Land Commissioner. Since we have not been persuaded by the learned counsel to take a different view of the matter, we would respectfully agree with and follow the view taken above by the D. B.
4. And reject the contention of the learned counsel for the same reasons.
5. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that after having revoked the concession the 0. S. D. Ought to have sent the case back to the Deputy Land Commissioner for determining the holding of the petitioner afresh in the light of his decision and should not have directed the Deputy Land Commissioner to resume the excess land as, firstly, this was primarily the function of the Deputy Land Commissioner and, secondly, it deprived the petitioner of claiming concession in P. I.
6. Us. On account of Banjar Jadid and Banjar Qadeem land which the petitioner could have legitimately raised before the Deputy Land Commissioner.
7. We, however, feel that since the question regarding P. I. U. Concession on account of Banjar Jadid and Banjar. Qadeem was not raised earlier before the Deputy Land Commissioner or the 0. S. D.
8. Federal C Land Commission, the question is not involved in the petition and th learned counsel cannot be permitted to raise it for the first time in this Court in or constitutional jurisdiction.
9. ' For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this petition as without merit, with no order as to costs.