' ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.--Petitioner No. 1, declared alienations by way of gift in favour of his sons, petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 under paragraph 12 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. These alienations were scrutinised and validated by the Land Commissioner, Sind, by his order dated 9th July, 1972.
However, the petitioners were served with notices dated 3rd November, 1976 by respondent No, I, the Federal Land Commission in exercise of suo motu revisional powers to re-examine the order of validation. The notices issued by respondent No. 1, contained the following grounds : "That the respondent No, I, has said in his statement that he wants to do Virhasat {{URDU TEXT}}amongst his Three sons. It has been validated as gift by the Land Commissioner, Sind. In that case neither express declaration of the gift by the donor nor their express acceptance by the donees. That the possession of the gifted land has not been handed over two the donees during the crucial period."
2. The case of the petitioners is that the gift abenations were made by the petitioner No. 1, in favour of petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 by means of a statement recorded by the Mukhtiarkar on 13th November, 1971 which was entered at page 40 of the Dakhil Kharij Register of the Taluka concerned. By his impugned order dated 20th December, 1976, the respondent No. 1, however, reached a finding that the entries recorded in the Dakbil Kharij Register at page 40 were forged and on this basis he invalidated the alienations. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order in this petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Mushtaq Memon, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Memon on behalf of the respondent No. 1. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that th respondent No, I, set aside the alienation in exercise of the suo mote powers on grounds other than those notified in the notice and thereby deprived the petitioners of a right of hearing. The contention has impressed us as clearly the ground that the alienations were obtained by means of fraud or forgery was not communicated to the petitioners and yet the main basis for setting aside the alienation was the ground of forgery. The learned counsel for the respondent was unable to meet this contention.
4. We are therefore, clearly of the view that adequate opportunity hearing was not provided to the petitioners and therefore the impugned order violated the rule of natural justice as well as the provisions of the second proviso to paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972.
5. In the result, we allow this petition and quash the impugned order of the 0. S. D., Federal Land Commission dated 20th December, 1976 and remand the case to the Federal Land Commission for fresh decision after notice to the petitioners. There will however, be no order as to costs.