1. AJMAL MIAN J.- This Petition is directed against the orders dated 31st January, 1969, 24th August, 1971 and 30th July, 1973 passed by Respondents Nos. 3, 2 and 1 respectively.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above Petition are that the Petitioners were granted two plots of land bearing survey Nos. 1614 and 1688, measuring 1282 Sq. Yards and 722 Sq. Yards respectively, situated in the City of Larkana in the years of 1908 and 1912 respectively under the Sanads dated December 1908 and 29th March, 1922 respectively (annexure `A and B' respectively).
3. It seems that in or about 1965 the Petitioner---s an ex-employee made a complaint to respondent No. 3 to the effect that the Petitioners had diverted the use of the above plots for other purpose than for which they were granted. However, no action was taken, but in February, 1969 the Petitioners received the aforesaid order dated 31st January, 1969 cancelling the above grants, passed by the Deputy Commissioner i. e. Respondent No. 3). The Petitioners being aggrieved by the above order filed an appeal before the Commissioner Khairpur Division, (i.e. Respondent No. 2) which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 24th August, 1971. Against the above order the Petitioners went in revision; but the same was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue (i.e. Respondent No. 1) through the above impugned order dated 30th July, 1973. In these circumstances the Petitioners have filed the present Petition in order to assail the above three orders.
(2) (a) In support of the above Petition Mr. G. M. Qureshi, learned counsel for the Petitioners has urged the following points
(i) That the original order dated 31st January, 1969 was passed with out any prior notice to the Petitioner and, therefore, the same was vitiated being in violation of the principles of natural justice.
(ii) That in any case the cancellation of the grants made through the aforesaid order dated 31st January, 1969 was not on the ground of any breach, but a simpliciter cancellation order, which could not have been made under the terms of the grant without giving 6 months previous notice in view of para. 3 of the Sanads.
(b) On the other hand Mr. Ibrahim Memon, learned counsel for the respondents has urged the following points :-
(i) That in any case the Petitioners were heard by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Revisional Authority and, therefore, the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice stood cured.
(ii) It was also contended that the order of the cancellation was not simpliciter cancellation order, but was an order on account of the breach of the terms of Sanads on the part of the petitioners.
4. (i.e) That the Petitioners have no locus standi.
(3) (a), In our view the above Petition should' `succeed on a short ground, namely, that the original order of the cancellation has no refer--hence to any breach of the terms of the Sanads allegedly committed by the Petitioners. The cancellation of grants seems to be simpliciter cancellation, which could not have been resorted without serving six months previous notice in terms of para. 3 of the Sanads. In our view the Appellate Authority and/or the Revisional Authority was not competent to justify the above original cancellation order on the ground of the alleged breach of the terms of the Sanads for the reason that the cancelling authority had not adverted to the above aspect, and in fact it amounted to settling up a new case at the appellate stage.
(b) Reverting to Mr. Ibrahim Memon's contention that the Petitioners have no locus stand! To file above Petition, it will suffice to observe that the Respondents have not filed any counter affidavit and, therefore, the Petitioners had no opportunity to meet the above point. We, therefore, cannot permit the respondents to raise the above point at this stage. Had the respondents raised the said point in a counter affidavit, the Petitioners might have filed certain documents to show locus standi. However, we may observe that it will be open to the respondents to raise the plea of locus standi before the authority concerned.