1. ' ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.-The facts necessary for decision of this petition are that haris lessees of survey Nos. 14, 269, 83, 271, 316 and 317 of deh Nohani, Taluka Tando Mohammed Khan. Hyderabad, applied for renewal of lease which was opposed by the petitioner through an application filed on the ground that it was his surrendered and repurchased land. By his order dated 28th November, 1973, Addl. Deputy Commissioner and Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Hyderabad, dismissed the petitioner's application on the ground that his grant of surrendered land stood cancelled for non-payment of installments. He also dismissed the applications of the haris for renewal of the lease on the ground that there existed ban on grant of fresh leases and directed them to approach the Barrage authorities for the same. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Additional Member Board of Revenue who initially ordered status quo but subsequently vacated the status quo by passing the following order which is impugned in this Petition:- "S. R.
0. No, 48 of 1973/74: Syed Ali Asghar Zaidi v. Add. D. C., Hyderabad. This case relates to the surrendered land which is being dealt with on administrative side in the L. U. Wing of the Board of Revenue, which is under the Member, Board of Revenue. The A. D. C., Hyderabad has wrongly usurped the above jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue.
2. Status quo be vacated. The counsel for both the parties informed accordingly.
3. (Sd.) D. S. Soomro, ' Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, Sind, Hyderabad."
4. ' The only contention raised by Mr. Fazle Ghani Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that, inasmuch the impugned order was passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue without hearing the petitioner in violation of the rule of natural justice, it be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and quashed, and direction be given that before passing any order in the appeal the petitioner should be heard.
5. ' Mr. Abbas Farooqui, learned counsel for the respondents stated that since the impugned order was passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue without hearing the petitioner, he conceded to the petition being allowed and direction being given for deciding the petitioner's appeal as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Perusal of the impugned order would show that by the said order them. Additional Member not only transferred the appeal but also gave a finding as to the correctness of the order appealed against and this was, admittedly, done by him without hearing the petitioner. That being so, we agree with Mr. Abbas Farooqui that this petition has to be allowed.
7. ' Accordingly, we allow this petition, declare the impugned order as passed without lawful authority and quash it, and direct that before passing any order in the appeal filed by them petitioner against the impugned order dated 28th November, 1973, an opportunity of hearing shall be given to the petitioner.
8. ' Needless to say, we have allowed this petition on the only ground that the order was passed without hearing the petitioner. Therefore, nothing said herein will be allowed to be used, in any manner whatsoever, insofar as the merits of the case are concerned.
9. ' The parties will bear their own costs.