' MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, C. J.-On 19-9-1960, the Sub-Assistant Land Commissioner of Darya Khan sanctioned Mutations Nos. 37 to 39 under Paragraph 22 of the Regulation which had abolished the interim interest between Adna and Aala Malik, but the former had to become owner of the land in their cultivating possession in that capacity. Malik Rustam, Aala Malik, appealed against it, and his appeal and later his revision petition were dismissed by the Land Commission Authorities.
2. On 25-2-1964, he filed a second revision petition which was dismissed by the Chief Land Commissioner, Puujab, on 19-6-1965, on the ground that it was barred by time. The learned Chief Land Commissioner, however, made the following observation in his order :-- "It would, however, be examined on the administrative side whether any action is called for on the suo motu side. This will be without a reference to the revisions disposed of by me today. I have asked the learned counsel for the parties to put in written arguments if they like for the consideration of the Land Commission Secretariat within a week."
3. The Adna Malik felt aggrieved by the initiation of suo motu proceedings in pursuance of the order of the Chief Land Commissioner. Meanwhile, the Chief Land Commissioner on 26-4-1967, took up the matter and passed an order setting aside the orders of all the subordinate authorities and remanding the case for a fresh decision.
4. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No, 839 of 1967 which was accepted on 19-11-1969.
5. After this, suo motu proceedings were taken up by the Chief Land Commissioner who in effect restored the previous order passed in 1967 and remanded the case to the Sub-Assistant Land Commissioner. Hence the present petition.
6. The sum total of the facts of this case is that the petitioners who claimed to be Adna Maliks in respect of some Shamilat land, plead that they are entitled to the benefit of provisions of paragraph 22 with respect to this land and should, therefore, be declared owners thereof. In fact their submission is that they have already been declared owners and that the orders so passed should not be allowed to be superseded by an executive order passed by the Land Commission.
7. The first time the petitioners were shown as Adna Maliks in respect of the land in dispute was on the basis of a mutation entered in 1959 which proceeds on the basis of an entry in the Khasra Girdawri for that year. There was no entry in the Jamabandi in favour of the petitioners as Adna Maliks in respect of the Shamilat land and in fact had there been one, there would have been no reasen to have a mutation carried out. that as it may, the fact remains that they became Adna Maliks or claim to have become Adna Maliks of the Shamilat land after paragraph 22 had been brought into existence. They, prima facie, are therefore, not entitled to claim the land under the cover of paragraph 22 as they were not Adn Maliks at the relevant time in respect of it.
8. In any case, all that the Land Commission Authorities are doing or have done is to hold an enquiry as to whether the petitioners were Adna Maliks at any relevant time before the promulgation of paragraph 22 and thus entitled to its benefit in respect of the land in dispute. This I something which cannot be done by us and in any case, no right could accrue to the petitioners unless it was in accordance with the provisions of M.L.R.
64. All that is to be done is to find out whether they are entitled to the land in dispute under M.L.R.
64. That being so, it is but reasonable and in accordance with the dictates of equity that their case should be dealt with at the lowest level i. e. By the Sub-Assistant Land Commissioner for the purpose of determining the entitlement of the petitioners in respect of the land in dispute.
9. We, therefore, dispose of this petition in the light of the observations made above and leave it to the Sub-Assistant Land Commissioner to proceed in the matter with a view to finding out whether the provisions of paragraph 22 are applicable to the case of the petitioners or not.