1. ' AJMAL MIAN, J:-This Petition is directed against the order dated 20-12-1976 passed by respondent No,1.
2. ' The brief facts leading to the filing of the above Petition are that late Mir Bandah AU Khan effected gifts in favour of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 i.e, minor son and daughter in the year 1971 as follows:- "Taluka Deh Area Name of Donee Date of Mutation.
3. Matli Tan'do 92-37 Mir Mohd. Hasan (son)
4. Ghulam All Dariri 169-27 Mir Mohd. Hasan (son)
5. Dariri 191-21 Met. Bibi Taslim (daughter)"
6. ' It seems that the matter came up for.consideration before the Land Commissioner, Sind under paragraph 7 of the Land Reform Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115), who by his order dated 28-6-1972 held that the gift in, respect of agricultural land situated in Deh Tando Ghulam Ali was valid, whereas the gifts in respect of the land situated in Deh Dariri were invalid for the reason that the same was mortgaged with the Agriculture Development Bank of Pakistan. The late Banda Ali being aggrieved by the above order filed appeal before the Chia Land Commissioner,' Sind Hyderabad, who by his order dated 14-5-197 allowed the appeal and held that the above two gifts were also valid It further seems that respondent No,1 in exercise of Su Motu revision power Under, paragraph 29 of M.L.R. 115 reopened the issue and b his impugned order dated 20-12-1976 has held that the above two gift were invalid as the lands were mortgaged with the Agriculture Development Bank of 'Pakistan. The petitioners who are the done being aggrieved by the above order have filed the present Petition through their next friend Mat. Bibi Sona, widow of Mir Bandah A Khan.
2. In support of the above Petition it has been .urged by M Imam All Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioners that apart from th fact that the petitioners being specified heirs in terms of explanation to para. 7 of the M.L.R and, therefore, the bona fide could not have been gone into, there was no legal embargo on the power of the mortgago to effect the gifts as the gifts would have been subject to the mortgage In furtherance of his above contention he has referred to the case Chief Land Commissioner and another v. Mouiadad and others 1.978 S M R 264, in which a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal against the judgment of a Divisio Bench of the Lahore High Court, in which it was held that the gift i respect of mortgaged land effected was not void including for purpose of M.L.R. The above case on all fours is applicable to the present case. We, therefore, allow the Petition and declare the impugned order as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The respondents are restrained from acting upon the above order. There will be no order as to costs.