' This is a revision petition against the order, dated 7-6-1971 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Hyderabad whereby he had rejected petitioners' appeal regarding mutation of S. Nos. 21/A, B, 37, 68/1, 2, 3, 71/1, 2, 3, 78, 82, 83, 75, 369 and 422 Deh Barochani, Taluka and District Hyderabad.
2 The facts of the case briefly stated are that the disputed land was sold by Sanjar Khan as attorney of the petitioners to the respondents by a registered sale-deed. The respondents approached the Settlement Mukatiarkar, for change of the Khata but their request was rejected by him vide has order, dated 1-4-1909 mainly on the ground that the petitioners denied that Sanjar Khan was their attorney. The respondents preferred an appeal to the Settlement Officer, Hyderabad who accepted the same vide his order, dated 30-7-1969. The petitioners preferred an appeal to the Addl Commissioner, Hyderabad who rejected it vide the impugned order.
3. Heard the counsel for the parties. The counsel for the petitioners contended that the alienation is void as there is contravention of Para. 25 of repealed M.L.R. 64 of 1959 while counsel for the respondents contended that there is no such contravention. Both the counsels have relied upon Revenue Ruling 11 page 483 by Mr. I. U. Khan the then Chief Land Commissioner of West Pakistan and urged that the joint holding is to be treated as one Unit for the purpose of Para. 25 of the repealed M. L. Regulation and that there is no contravention so long as the joint holding is not reduced below the subsistence holding. The counsel for the petitioners added that the joint holding had been reduced below subsistence holding while the counsel for the respondent contended that it had not been reduced and continued to remain as joint holding even after the alienation. The total area of the joint holding is 44.21 Acres. Some alienations took place in respect of the holding but according to these alienations also undivided shares in joint holding were alienated and obviously the joint holding continued to remain as such. After the disputed alienation of 21-23 Acres, the holding was reduced to 22.38 Acres and it was above subsistence holding. Hence the provisions of Para. 25 of repealed M.L.R. 64 of 1959 were not attracted in this case. This view is confirmed by the instruction contained in Circular letter ASR-796/62-5794-LC, dated 5-11.1962 of the defunct-West Pakistan Land Commission.
4. Besides the above point the petitioner had raised the following additional points in his petition of appeal :-
(i) Sanjar Khan Hajano, who had executed the deed in respect of the disputed alienation had no power-of-attorney from the petitioners to sell their land and the document if any, was a forged one ;
(ii) The petitioners had not received consideration in respect of the land. The consideration had not been paid and it should have been paid before the Sub-Registrar before whom the document was registered.
5. The counsel for the petitioner has not pressed these points in his verbal arguments. However, the points involve finding of fact and question of fraud and can very well be agitated in civil Court. The revenue Courts are not expected to go into complicated questions of fact in summary proceedings on Record of Rights side. Consequently there is no justification for interference with the orders of the lower Courts even on this account.
6. For the above reasons, there is no force in the revision petition which is rejected.
Revision rejected.