' This is an appeal against the order, dated 17-10-1975 of the Commissioner, Karachi Division, whereby he rejected as time-barred the review petition of the appellant in respect of grant of lease of land in Deh Khar Kharo, Taluka Karachi.
2. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record. An area of 47-20 Acres from No class S. Rs, 214 of Deh Khar Kharo has been granted on lease to Messrs Zohra Naveed Ansari for Wahi Chahi cultivation for 10 years by the Commissioner, Karachi, vide his Order Rs, Revision 1153/1953, dated 13-5-1975. Originally this area was on lease with Mr. Usman All Ansari and after his death the lease was renewed in the name of Mr. Fareed Ahmed Ansari from 1970-71. Mr. Fareed Ahmed Ansari surrendered an area of 41.0 Acres in favour of his sister Mrs. Zohra Naveed Ansari. On actual measurement the area was found to be 47-20 Acres. The lease of this area was consequently granted to Mrs. Zohra Naveed Ansari. The review petition of the appellant was dismissed by the .Commissioner, Karachi as time-barred vide the impugned order. The counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the impugned order disposed of a review petition and in view of provisions of section 163(4) of Land Revenue Act, no appeal could lie against any such order. The objection of the counsel is quite legal and obviously the appeal is not maintainable, but the facts, which have come to light during the arguments of the parties, show that there has been patent disregard of the policy instructions in grant of lease to the respondent and previous lessee had also violated the terms and conditions of the lease by subletting the land to the appellant and, therefore, there is adequate justification for interference on suo motu side. The case is, therefore, admitted for hearing and disposed of in exercise of the revisional powers vested in me under section 164(4) of Land Revenue Act, 1967.
4. The counsel for the appellant mainly contends that Mr. Fareed Ansari had alienated his Kabuli as well as leased area to the appellant and had accepted adequate consideration for the entire area and that he had executed registered sale-deed for Kabuli holding and an irrevocable general power-of-attorney for the leased area in her favour. He argued that the power-of-attorney had been executed as no regular sale-deed could be executed for the leased area according to the policy. On the other hand, the counsel' for the respondents denies any alienation in respect of the leased area and contends that the power-of-attorney was bona fide and had nothing to do with the alienation in respect of the Kabuli land.
5. I have considered the arguments of both the parties. The power of-attorney executed by Mr. Fareed Ahmed Ansari shows that it was being executed in favour of the lady as Mr. Fareed Ahmed Ansari was not able to look after the land. It is highly doubtful that a lady would look after the land better than the gentleman. Besides, the power-of attorney was irrevocable. These two circumstances lend support to the allegations of the other party that there had been alienation in respect A of the leased area as well and the power-of-attorney was not without a mala fide intention of circumventing the restrictions in the Land Grant Policy relating to such alienations. The surrender statement given b Mr. Farid Ahmed Ansari in favour of Mrs. Zohra Naveed Ansari also shows that this was done to nullify the power-of-attorney which was otherwise irrevocable.
Besides, the grant of lease in respect of the area B is governed by Notification Rs, KB- 1/30/72/1413/3239, dated 27-3-1973. According to Para. 2 of the notification, the land could be leased out after satisfaction of Harap, Khasmokal, Mohag and Hak-Kabza rights. Mrs. Zohra Naveed had none of these rights. Mr. Fareed Ahmed Ansari had also lost his Mohag after alienation of the adjoining Kabuli holdings. C This aspect of the case had not been taken into account by the Commissioner, Karachi while granting lease of the land to Mrs. Zohra Naveed. There is also no provision in the Land Grant Policy for any such surrender statement on the basis of which a previous lessee, could transfer his rights to anyone else as has been done in the present case.
6. For the above reasons, I hold that Mrs. Zohra Naveed Ansari had no right to get lease of the land and Mr. Fareed Ahmed had violated the provisions of Para. 14 of the terms and conditions of the Grant by subletting it to the appellant. In view of this position, the revision is allowed and the order, dated 13-5-1975 passed by the Commissioner, Karachi granting lease of the disputed land to Mrs. Zohra Naveed Ansati is vacated. The land should be disposed of afresh as per the Land Grant Policy in force.
7. The perusal of the record shows that Mr. Farid Ahmed Ansari holds other land on lease in addition to the disputed land. His eligibility to grant of those areas has also to be re-examined in view of the observation contained in this order. The Commissioner, Karachi is, therefore, directed to re- examine those grants as well and pass appropriate orders as per policy in force.