1. ' This petition is directed against the order of Deputy Custodian dated 23rd January, 1973 confirmed in 'revision by the Custodian of Evacuee Property by his order, dated 10th December, 1973.
2. ' The dispute relates to, agricultural land bearing- Survey No, 108 measuring 2.33 acre situated in Deh PanWer Tappo Bhiro, Taluka Rohri, District Sukkur. It is the case of petitioner that this property was owned and possessed by one Hindu Chandi Ram who on the wake of the partition of subcontinent migrated to India and therefore the land became an evacuee property. This property was temporarily allotted to respondent 6 under the Rehabilitation Scheme and was later allotted to him in November, 1959 against his verified claim of agricultural land vide Khatooni bearing No, 3/17 dated 6th November, 1959. This land was ultimately permanently settled in favour of respondent 6 in the year 1960. The petitioner claims to have purchased this land through a registered sale-deed dated 24th January, 1970 from respondent 6 and is in continuous and undisturbed possession of the land since the year 1959 when it was first allotted to respondent No, 6 by the rehabilitation authority. It appears that on 7th August, 1972 respondents 3 to 5 moved an application before the Deputy Custodian Evacuee Property, Khairpur Division at Sukkur under section 22 of Act XII of 1957 on the allegation that the land in dispute was owned by their predecessor which was mortgaged with the Hindu Chandi Ram and therefore, they are entitled to redeem the same within a period of 60 years. The present petitioner who had purchased this land was however not impleaded as a party in the case. This application was accepted by the Deputy Custodian and the property was allowed to be redeemed by Respondents 3 to 5 on account of the mortgage sum, plus interest at the rate of 5%. The petitioner challenged the above order in revision before the Custodian of Evacuee Property which was dismissed on 12th October, 1979. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of Deputy Custodian, dated 23rd January, 1973 is an order without jurisdiction as the petitioner who was a necessary party was condemned unheard. It is further contended that the hearing given to his client at the stage of revision is no hearing at all as neither the petitioned at that stage could produce any evidence nor he could cross-examine respondents who had appeared and deposed before Deputy Custodian on oath in support of their application under section 22 of Act XII of 1957. The contention of the learned counsel for -the petitioner is not without force. I find from the diary sheet of the case before the Deputy Custodian that on 27th September, 1972, respondents 3 to 5 had requested for issuance of notice of the application to the claimant's Hari which was allowed but no notice was issued to the Hari. Even notice to the claimant who was party to the case does not appear to have been served on him after restoration of the case. The case was decided by the Deputy Custodian on the basis of evidence recorded ex parte.
3. In these circumstances the contention of the learned counsel that subsequent hearing at the stage of revision cannot be regarded as sufficient is not without force as the petitioner neither had the opportunity to produce evidence in the revision nor he could call the respondents for cross- examination. I accordingly accept this petition, set aside the order of Deputy Custodian, dated 23rd January, 1973 and that of Custodian dated 10th December, 1973 but in the circumstances remand the case back to the authorised officer to decide the application of respondents 3 to 5 filed under section 22 of Act VII of 1957 after hearing the petitioner and giving him an opportunity to cross- examine the respondents and to produce such evidence as he may desire in this regard. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.