1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--Facts of this case briefly stated are that Mst. Aziz Begum, 'first respondent, owned considerable agricultural land in Taluka Sinjhoro, District Sanghar, and on the promulgation of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 she filed a declaration disclosing that she had made a joint gift of her agricultural land to favour of five persons under Mutation No. 147-A dated 26-1-1968. The Deputy Land Commissioner after scrutinising the record made a report to the Land Commissioner, Sind who, by the order dated 19-10-1972, declared that the gifts made in favour of to daughters, second and third respondents, were valid, but those in favour of others were invalid, being hit by the Proviso to paragraph 2(i)(b) of the Regulation The case, however, went up further before the Federal Land Commission in suo motu revisional jurisdiction, and the learned Member Commission who dealt with it held by the order dated 26-11-1980 the alienations of gifts were also invalid.
2. Respondents challenged the order of the Member, Federal Land Commission in a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution before Sind High Court, which was allowed for the reason that the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court held that the findings recorded by the learned Member, Federal Land Commission "are based on surmises and conjectures, on the basis of personal impression gathered from the revenue record", rather than documents on record. On examination of the original revenue record in respect of the alienations in question, learned Judges further held that "it could not have been conclusively concluded that the entries relating to the to alienations in question were manipulated. It would have been appropriate for respondent No. 1 to record the evidence of the Revenue authorities after notice to the petitioners on the question whether the entries in question were in consonance with the practice obtaining in the revenue department in the District in question." On this view of the case, learned Judges allowed, the petition and declared the impugned order as without lawful authority, and remanded the case to the Member, Federal Land Commission for fresh decision.
3. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court in order to consider the legality and propriety of the judgment of the High Court.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the record before us we find that no exception whatsoever can be taken to the view that prevailed with the learned Judges, that the impugned order passed by the learned Member, Federal Land Commission was based on mere surmises and conjectures and conclusions drawn by him do not necessarily flow from the Revenue Record. In the circumstances the High Court rightly adopted the proper course by directing remand of the case to the Federal Land Commission for fresh decision in accordance with law.
5. There is, therefore, no merit in this appeal, and it is accordingly dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.