' Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J.-- The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 8th October,1976 and 17th July,1980 passed by respondents Nos.3 and 2, respectively in this petition. The facts leading to this petition are as follows:-
2. Respondent No,1 was allotted agricultural land measuring 379.8 acres in Deh Almani, Moolan and Gujo, Tapo Moolan, Taluka and District Hyderabad, in satisfaction of his claim for agricultural lands left behind in India against Q.P.R.V. On the promulgation of M.L.Rs, 89 and 91 the entitlement of respondent No,1 was reduced to 52.96 P.I. Units and as a result thereof respondent No,1 surrendered an area of land measuring 252.16 acres under the aforesaid M.L.R. And repurchased the same on instalments. On 5th July,1962 respondent No,1 entered into an agreement of sale with the first petitioner for sale of an area 89.23 acres in Deh Moolan, which is subject-matter of this petition and also executed a general power-of-attorney duly registered in favour of petitioner No,1 in respect of the same. On 11th March,1972 when M.L.R. Came into force respondent No,1 filed a declaration under it declaring all the alienations made by him before coming into force of the above regulation including the transaction entered in between him and the petitioner No,1 on 5th July,1962. On 24th July,1972, the Land Commissioner Sind, accepted the declaration filed by respondent No,1 under Paragraph 12 of M.L.R 115 and the transfers made by the respondent No,1 were held to be valid and bona fide. On 25th September, 1973 respondent No,1 executed a registered sale-deed in favour of petitioner No,2 through his attorney petitioner No,l. It appears that after the lapse of about four years from the above order of Land Commission Sind, the O.S.D. Federal Land Commission issued notice in a Suo Motu Revision No,537/75 against respondent No,1 and petitioner No,1 alleging that the transfer made in respect of land in Deh Moolan was invalid and incomplete as no proof of payment of the instalments for repurchase of the .Land was furnished by respondent No,1 and the tractor concession which was availed by respondent No,1 under M.L.R. 114 was wrongly allowed. In response of the above notice only petitioner No,1 appeared before the O.S.D. Federal Land Commission and contested the case. The O.S.D. F.L.C. However after hearing petitioner No,1 and his counsel by his order dated 8th October,1976 held that the transfer of land in his favour was not valid as the sale-deed which was executed on 25th September,1973 is hit by paragraph 7 of the M.L.R.115. As a result of this order the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, was directed to re- determine the entitlement of respondent No,1 under M.L.R.115 and resume the excess area of land from respondent No,l. After the order of O.S.D. Federal Land Commission the respondent No,1 appeared before the Deputy Land Commissioner and expressed his choice to surrender the land sold by him to the petitioner. This was however not accepted by the Deputy Land Commissioner Sind who resumed the land equivalent to the access area held by the petitioner in Deh Almani.
Against the order of Deputy Land Commissioner Sind, respondent No,1 filed appeal before the Land Commissioner Sind, but there too the contention of respondent No,1 that as a result of declaration of transfer by him in favour of petitioners, as void by O.S.D. F.L.C., he was entitled to surrender that land, was not accepted and it was directed that the land other than the lend which respondent No,1 has sold to the petitioner, one Dr.Anwar Ali Almani and Mst.Bhiri, be resumed as an excess land. The order of Land Commissioner Sindh, was further challenged by respondent No,1 before the Chief Land Commissioner who also agreed with the order of Dy. Land Commissioner and the Land Commissioner Deputy, Sind. In the meantime on 20th June,1977 the Deputy Land Commissioner resumed an area of 44.5 acres of agricultural and situated in Deh Almani which was found to be in excess under M.L.R.115, as a result of declaration of transfer made by respondent No,1 in favour of petitioner as void. Respondent No,1 meanwhile filed a revision application under paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 before the Federal Land Commission against the order dated 6th February,1980 passed by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Sind The F.L.C. Held that in view of the order of O.S.D., F.L.C. Dated 8th October,1976 respondent No,1 was fully _entitled to surrender the land transferred to the petitioner by respondent No,1, as the same formed part of his holding under M.L.R.115 and accordingly on 17th July,1980 it set aside the order dated 6th March,1980 passed by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Sind. The petitioners therefore filed the present petition in this count on 14th September,1980 challenging the order dated 17th July,1980 passed by respondent No,2 and the order dated 8th Ocotober,1976 passed by respondent No,3. Since one of the orders impugned in this petition was passed as late as 8th October,1976, we enquired from the learned counsel the reason for not challenging the same earlier and asked him to explain the laches. The learned counsel in reply submitted that in spite of the fact that the transfer of land in favour of petitioners by respondent No,1 was held to be void by order dated 8th October,1976, the same was never given effect to buy the Land Reforms Authorities and the petitioner's ontention that respondent No,1 could not surrender the land transferred to him was upheld throughout.
Therefore, no occasion arose for the petitioners to challenge the said order. However, the petitioner's interest in the land was affected adversely for the first time when respondent No,2 passed the order dated 17th July,1980 and accordingly the petitioners immediately on 15th September,1980 filed the present petition challenging the orders dated 17th July,1980 and 8th October,1976 and therefore there were no laches on the part of petitioners in challenging the order dated 8th October,1976. The learned counsel for respondent No,1 also supports the contention of the petitioner that in these circumstances there were no laches on the part of petitioner in challenging the order dated 8th October,1976. After hearing the learned counsel and examining the above facts we are satisfied that the present petition does not suffer from laches. We will therefore now examine the other contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two-fold contentions before us. It is firstly contended that in view of the settled legal position that a transfer made by way of agreement of sale coupled with transfer of possession thereunder before the target dates mentioned in M.L.R.115, is valid and is not hit by paragraph 7 of M.L.R.115, the order dated 8th October,1976 passed by the 0.S.D. Federal Land Commission is bad in law. Reliance in this connection is place by the learned counsel on the cases of Mahfoozur Rehman v. F.L.C. P L 0 1980 Kar. 427 and Limo Khan and another v. F.L.C. PLD 1981 Kar.
114. The learned counsel for respondent No,1 did not challenge the above legal position and after going through the above cited cases we are in no difficulty in holding that the order dated 8th October,1976 was not a valid order. Insofar the order of respondent No,2 dated 17th July,1980 is concerned, we may only say that it was found by respondent No,2 that respondent No,1 had the choice to surrender the land transferred to the petitioners, under M.L.R.115, in view of the order of respondent No,3 dated 8th October,1976. As we have reached the conclusion that order dated 8th October,1976 passed by respondent No,3 was not a valid order, the basis on which the order of respondent No,2 had proceeded is no more available and therefore we also declare the order dated 17th July,1980 as of no legal effect.
' In consequence this petition is accepted and the orders dated 8th October,1976 and 17th July,1980 'passed by respondents No,3 and 2, respectively are declared as having been passed without any lawful authority and of no legal effect. The result is that respondent No,1 is not entitled to surrender the land transferred by him to the petitioners on 5th July, 1962, under para. 12 of M.L.R.115. In the circumstances of the case we will make no orders as to cost.