' This is an appeal from one Muhammad Yamin Khan against the order, dated 4-9 1970 of Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, whereby he was informed in continuation of earlier orders, dated 29-4-1970 that the subject land of this appeal in. Dehs Mianokarat Lakhi and Khorwah was surrendered area of the claimant purchaser Mst. Ashia Maryam and was cancelled on her own request. Therefore question of postponement of outstanding instalments in respect of these lands which stand cancelled already did not arise. He was, however, informed that as regards the lands in Dehs San and Shorki of claimant purchaser, these could be restored to her (the optee purchaser lady) provided she was prepared to deposit the outstanding instalments including interest and penal interest within a period of one month. By the said order of the Commissioner stay granted earlier was also vacated.
2. The facts of the case are that due to scheme under M. L. R. 89/91. Mst. Ashia Maryam widow of Mazhar Ali Imam, claimant land holder, surrendered her lands in the said Dehs and then opted to purchase them.
3. Taking various representations of the petitioner and those of Mst. Ashia optee- purchaser and mainly on account of default in the payment of instalments of me price of toe land, tne Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad, after giving show-cause notice to the lady cancelled the land of the optee-purchaser by his order, dated 9-10-1967. This order is quite self-explanatory and speaks in lucid terms as to why the lands of the optee-purcnaser in Dehs Mianokarat, Khorwah and Lakhi were cancelled. A copy of this very order was sent to the optee-purchaser but no response came from her. Against the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, the appellant came before the Commissioner on 12-10-1967 agitating against cancellation proceedings for permission to pay instalments and for stay on account of failure of crops in the lands by presenting a simple petition.
This was followed by another petition by the appellant dated 17-10-1967 with reiterated request for stay/status quo from the Commissioner by his order, dated 6-11-1967. Subsequently full report came from the Deputy Commissioner on 16-11-1967 to the Commissioner, Hyderaoad Division, who then intimated the petitioner that since the land in question was cancelled at the request of the original grantee, Mst. Ashia Maryam, nothing could be done in the matter. He was, however, advised by the Commissioner to seek redress in the Court of law, if there was any understanding or agreement between the petitioner and claimant purchaser. The status quo allowed earlier was vacated by the then Commissioner during December, 1967.
4. In the circumstances, the chapter of this case of the petitioner actually came to end by the said order of the Commissioner. Strangely enough, concealing tie above orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner and correct facts of the case, he again filed a petition in September, 1969 to the Commissioner for postponement up to 31-12-1969. He filed another petition for extension and he was granted further stay upto 15-12-1969 by the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division. Furthermore, the petitioner came before the Commissioner again on 26-1-1970 praying that his possession was being disturbed by the Mukhtiarkar and he may be granted status quo. In the result, status quo was granted by the then Commissioner on 10-2-1970. The petitioner again put up petition that the Mukhtiarkar was contemplating to lease out the land and the status quo order was not being complied with by the Mukhtiarkar. This brought up stay from the Commissioner on 23-4-1970.
5. On 2-5-1970 the present respondents headed by one Nizamdin came before the Commissioner with an application for grant of the land to them on instalment basis saying that they were old Morusi Haris of the land ; that it had been cancelled from the name of the optee-purchaser and that one Kazi Karamullah had been given the same land on Pagree by the optee-purchaser.
6. On receipt of report from the Deputy Commissioner on the earlier petitions of appellant and these Hari petitioners and after considering the plea of the Haris and the correct position of the cancellation of the land, the Commissioner ordered for grant of the lands in Dehs Mianokarat, Khorwah and Lakhi for a period of one year to the Haris on lease. The stay finally granted was vacated. The petitioner was also informed. This has brought up present appeal from the petitioner.
7. Mr. Noor Muhammad Bughio, counsel for the petitioner, has mainly relied on the following contentions :-
(1) That the optee-purchaser had already exercised her option accepting the first scheme, surrendering her land and again purchasing it in time as per orders issued by the authorities in accordance with the schedule. He further maintains that assuming for arguments sake that the optee-purchaser failed to exercise her option according to the latest orders of the Government, even then the matter was sub judice. In this context he referred me to the orders of the defunct Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore, as contained, in their memo. No, 785-.10/370, dated 29-5- 1970 and those issued recently by the Sind Board of Revenue vide their No, 1097/70/282, dated 13- 10-1970. He therefore stated that the petitioner is entitled to the Kharif crop since orders of the Commissioner as intimated to his client are, dated 4-9-1970 while the crop had already been raised long back.
(2) The counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the disposal of the land is illegal and hence the order of the Commissioner is questionable. He has raised a point that one Nizamdin who had been representing the case of Haris is not a party in this matter. On the other hand, when petition of the appeal is seen, the petitioner is depending on power-of-attorney assigned to him by the ex-opteepurchaser and agreement executed by her in the year 1962 and presses to draw proprietary right over the land on the basis of these documents.
8. While representing the case of respondents their counsel Mr. Ghulam Hyder, has contended that the Hari petitioners had come before the Commissioner on 2-5-1970 and had requested for the grant of the land and also agitated for vacation of the status quo granted to the other party, Ijazatnamas were also issued to some of the respondents on 16-9-1970 and that they had already raised crops on the lands on their own expenses. The two circulars quoted by the counsel of the other party, are not helpful for the case of the petitioner as her land was cancelled prior to the issue of these circulars.
9. The record shows that the land was cancelled by regular order of Deputy Commissioner during the year 1967 after taking into consideration the petitions of the optee-purchaser lady and on her own request by which she surrendered these lands to be cancelled and that there was default of more than two instalments. She was also given show-cause notice but she made no response to it.
The status of the petitioner had itself become questionable long ago in the wake of the allegations made by the lady herself and her other attorneys. It, therefore, looks difficult to give any value to the authority of the petitioner to act as legal attorney for the exoptee-purchaser. As regards his claim that he had purchased the lands, it is not acceptable firstly because the Commissioner had informed him in clear terms under his letter No, 0-2-304-1/67, dated 1-1-1968 that since the land had been cancelled nothing could be done in the matter with an advise that he should seek redress in the Court of law if there was any understanding or agreement between him and Mst.
Ashia Maryam. This is based on Memorandum of Board of Revenue which says that "Government is not concerned with any agreement entered into by the optee-purchaser with any person." It is also found that the orders contained in the Memo.6 of defunct Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore, dated 20th May, 1970 (No, 785/870 G. M. II, III) apply to subsisting holdings only and do not cover up stay orders/status quo orders of the nature which were at certain stage obtained by the petitioner (in this case) who had no locus standi.
10. Furthermore, I find that the order of the Deputy Commissioner is still alive and representation of the petitioner against it was rejected by the Commissioner in January, 1968 and the petitioner never went in appeal. c It is seen that the learned Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, had ordered for the disposal of the land on exalt tenure only in the light of the order contained in the West Pakistan Board of Revenue, Lahore's Memo. No, 942-70/1952/G. B. M. III, dated 12th June, 1970.
11. As a result I reject the petition.
12. So far as the crop that has been kept in deposit as Zamindari share is concerned, share of the respondents who have actually been granted lease by the competent authority be given to them after deducting Government dues. For balance of Zamindari share, the Deputy Commissioner should decide who are legitimately entitled to it and release it accordingly.