' This is a revision petition against the order dated, 24-4-1971 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, whereby he rejected the petitioner's appeal regarding Foti-Khata- Badal in respect of S. Nos. 588, 590, 776 of Deh Rello, Taluka Mirpur Bathoro, District Thatta.
2. The facts of the case are that the Foti-Khata-Badal of deceased Murid, husband of the petitioner, was decided by the Head Munshi, Mirpur Bathoro vide his mutation order dated 22-3-1969. The petitioner preferred an appeal against that order to the Assistant Commissioner, Shahbunder, which was also rejected by him as time-barred The petitioner preferred second appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, .Thatta who vide his order dated 15-6-1970, refused to entertain the appeal on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner. Shahbunder, was exercising the powers of Collector under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 and the Deputy Commissioner could not entertain appeal against orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, in his capacity as Collector. The petitioner then preferred an appeal to the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, which was rejected by him vide his impugned order.
3. I heard the parties on 28-6-1971. The following persons who were treated as heirs vide the Foti- Khata-Badal were not shown as party in the revision petition and they were as such impleaded as party and notices were issued to them for today's hearing.
"(1) Soomar son of Bakhshan.
(2)Jumo son of Soomar.
(3)Bakhshan son of Soomar.
(4)Mst. Dani daughter of Soomar.
(5)Mst. Bakhtawar daughter of Soomar.
(6)Mst. Khato daughter of Soomar."
4. I heard the parties today. The main points urged by them were as follows :- ' PETITIONER (i)Mst. Changi had reported to the Mukhtiarkar vide application dated 7-3-1969 about the death of her husband and stated therein that she and Muhammad Khan and Khuda Bux, who were cousins of her husband, were legal heirs but she was not heard by the Head Munshi at the time of decision of Foti-Khata-Badal and the order was ex parte.
(ii) Muhammad Khan and Khuda Bux were related to Aurid as per geneological table mentioned in the revision petition but they were ignored and the persons who were not heirs, were declared as heirs of the deceased.
(iii) The Head Munshi did not make any enquiry and did not decide the Foti-Kha:a-Badal in common assembly as required by sections 42 (6) and (8) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967.
' RESPONDENTS
(i) According to report dated 12-2-1970 of Taluka Head Munshi, sufficient publicity had been made about the Foti-Khta-Badal.
(ii) The Foti-Khata-Badal was decided on the basis of statements of two respectable persons of the locality and these persons were actually produced by the Lady herself.
(iii) The petitioner Mst. Changi has been allowed her due share in the property and now she was contesting for shares of Muhammad Khan and Khuda Bux. Muhammad Khan and Khuda Bux did not report acquisition of their right to the Mukhtiarkar as required by section 42 (1) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. They did not prefer any appeal or revision against the Foti-Khata- Badal to any of the authorities earlier and they were also not shown as petitioners in the present revision petition. If they had any rights they should have agitated for their rights before the Revenue authorities and preferred appeal and revisions against the decision which did not recognise them as heirs of the deceased. Mst. Changi has got her due share in the property and she has no locus standi to agitate on behalf of other two persons.
(iv) There are three concurrent decisions of the Lower Courts which can be set aside only under very exceptional circumstances as held in PLD 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 453 and PLD 1966 W. P. (Rev.) 116."
5. I also heard Mr. Muhammad Juman, Taluka Head Munshi who decided the original Foti-Khata- Badal today. He stated that the lady had verbally reported the death of her husband and the acquisition of her right in the land to the Mukhtiarkar who had directed her to approach the Head Munshi as the circle was in his charge, and that she did not prefer any application in writing as alleged by her. He also contended that the village was near to Taluka Headquarter and that the two witnesses were actually produced by the lady and the decision about Foti-Khata-Badal was nut without the knowledge of the lady. He further stated that he had, however, gone to the spot subsequently when the lady preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner to ascertain the veracity of her claim and that he had ascertained from a Member of Basic Democracy and recorded statement of two aged persons of the locality and his enquiries revealed that the geneological table putforth by the lady was not correct and that according to the correct geneological table given in his report dated 12-2-1970, addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, Muhammad Khan and Khuda Bux were not connected with the deceased through any of their ancestors and were not, therefore, entitled to inheritance.
6. I have considered the arguments of the parties and seen the record. I am unhappy to find that Taluka Head Munshi had based his decision only on the statement of two persons and initially did not make any enquiry on the spot as required by sections 42(6) and (8) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, but 1 find that he went to spot subsequently and made detailed enquiries about the status of the parties, which confirmed his previous decisions. I, therefore, feel that the compliance of the provisions of the law were substantially made in the case and the omission was rectified by the subsequent detailed enquiry and due precautions had been taken to record the statements of all the persons. Besides, Muhammad Khan and Khuda Bux did not initially report acquisition of their rights as required by section 42(1) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act. They did not prefer any appeal against the decision of the Head Munshi to the Assistant Commissioner or revision petitions to the Deputy Commissioner or Additional Commissioner. They are also not petitioners in the revision petition filed before me. If they had any legitimate claim, they should have agitated it before the appropriate authorities earlier and I do not see an reason as to why they kept silent about their' claim, if any, in the land so far.
7. In view of above, I hold that there has been no miscarriage of justice in the present case. Mst.
Changi has been allowed her due share. The rights of Muhammad Khan and Khuda Bux have neither been admitted nor proved. There appears, therefore no justification to interfere in the case at this stage. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.