1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This appeal has been heard alongwith Civil Appeals Nos. 128 and 129 of 1978, as the decision on the questions falling for determination in this appeal .Are largely dependent upon the decision in the aforesaid appeals.
2. In this case, the appellant had challenged certain orders by the respon--dents Nos. 1 to 3 regarding resumption and distribution of the land belong--ing to the appellant. The orders passed by the first too respondents were passed under the Laud Reforms Regulation, 1959 (M. L. R. 64), namely, two orders passed on 6-5-1968 by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur (respondent No. 1). By the first order, the Deputy Land Commissioner decided to upset and alter the earlier order dated 20-2-1956 passed by Ch. Bashir Ahmad, the then Deputy Land Commissioner and decided to resume the land which, according to the appellant, was his personal property as Ameer of Bahawalpur. By the second order, the Deputy Land Commissioner decided the questions of inheritance to the personal pro--perty of the appellant as Ameer of Bahawalpur. The order of res-- pondent No. 2 consisted of the decisions taken by it in its meeting held on 21st November, 1967 for resumption of certain properties which, according to the appellant, were his personal properties; while the third respondent had passed an order on 20th February, 1969 called the Devolution and Distribution of the Property (Ameer of Bahawalpur) Order, 1969, whereby the properties of the late Ameer of Bahawalpur were distributed amongst his heirs in a certain manner, in exercise of powers conferred on the Central Government under Article 3 of the Acceding State (Property) Order, 1961 (President's Order No. 12 of 1961).
3. The appellant had challenged the validity of the last mentioned Order on the ground that as the successor of the late Ameer he was entitled to inherit the entire property left by him, because he having succeeded to the Ameerate was also entitled by the rule of primogeniture under the law and customs of the State of Bahawalpur to succeed to the entire property, which was only an adjunct to the office of the Ameerate. The Order of the Cen--tral Government (respondent No. 3 herein), whereby some part of the property was also given to the other heirs of the late Ameer, was illegal and not warranted by law. In this appeal, the legality and validity of the orders passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were questioned on the premises that the entire property in question was Ameerate property attached to the office of the Ameer, to which the appellant had succeeded and could not, there--fore, be resumed, nor could any other heir inherit any part of it.
4. The above contention for reasons given in detail in the judgment passed in the connected Civil Appeals (C. As. Nos. 128 and 129 of 1978) has been found to be without force, and consequently, the plea that the property in question was Ameerate property and that the appellant was entitled to inherit it to the exclusion of all the other heirs is not sustainable.
5. However, it has been held in the aforesaid judgment that the distribution made in the order of respondent No. 3 passed on 20-2-1969 suffers from certain infirmities and respondent No. 3 has been directed to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations made in the said judgment. Consequently, the orders passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, with regard to the distribution of the property as also relating to the resumption of the excess area will require modification and case properly be decided only after a final decision is taken by respondent No. 3, with regard to the distribution of the property amongst the various heirs of the late Ameer.
6. We may here clarify that the appellant, as also the other heirs of the late Ameer, are citizens of Pakistan and are not above the law and that the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 are applicable to them but as the identity of the exact property owned by each heir is not yet determined resumption of the excess area cannot, in these circumstances, be made with exactitude.
7. The result will be that as soon as the final position of the holdings of the heirs of late Ameer of Bahawalpur has been decided by respondent No. 3, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 will be at liberty to proceed under the provisions of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 (M. L. R. 64). The orders of the Land Reforms Authorities impugned before us are, accordingly, set aside with the clarification that as soon as respondent No. 3 makes the final order under Article 3 of the Acceding State (Property)
8. Order, 1961, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 can proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
9. This appeal is allowed in the above terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.