' The is a revision petition against the order, dated 19-8-1971 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, whereby he rejected the petitioner's appeal regarding Remokal fine of Rs, 543.45 imposed against the petitioner for unauthorised cultivation in an area of 9 Acres from Nakabuli S. No, 68, Deh Jarari. Taluka Sinjhoro, District Sanghar, during Kharif and Rabi 1970-71.
2. The facts of the case are that petitioner was penalized to the above extent by the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar. He preferred an appeal to the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, contending that he had taken up an area of 225 Acres adjacent to the disputed land and that there were no signs of boundary marks on the land, and he could not say whether any cultivation had been raised unauthorisedly.
His appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, vide the impugned order, on the ground that he had not produced any documentary evidence to support his version that he is not guilty.
3. The petitioner contended that he had not cultivated any portion out of S. No, 68 and that penal action had been initiated against him by the Tapedar who was prejudiced against him. He also contended that no show-cause notice had been given to him before imposition of penalty else he would have explained his position.
4. I have perused the record and heard the Taluka Head Munshi and the Supervising Tapedar. The penal action was taken against the petitioner as a fourth offence. The representatives of the State have conceded that no show-cause notice was issued against the petitioner before the penal action was taken against him. According to Khasra Girdawari, 3 Acres out of S. No, 68 were cultivated with Cotton during Kharif and 5 Acres out of it were cultivated during Rabi with Wheat crop during the year 1969-70. In column No, 2 of the Khasra Girdawari where the name of Khatedar is to be shown, the name of Photo K.Horkhani has been shown against the S. No, while in column No, 7 the name of petitioner has been shown as remokal Abadgar. I do not find name of Photo Khorkhani any where in the previous Khasra Girdawari. The S.T. Stated that Photo Khorkhani was Hari and the petitioner was the remokal Abadgar but could not say why the name of Photo Khorkhani finds place in the column meant for the Khatedar and why the name of Pir Bux was not shown in his place as remokal Abadgar. He was also required to show as to what was the basis for thr finding that the petitioner was actually the remokal Abadgar and Photo Khorkhani was his Hari but he had nothing to show in support of it. No record could also be produced by the representative of the State to show that this was the fourth offence of the petitioner.
5. The West Pakistan Board of Revenue vide their Memorandum No, 3456-64-IV/55-P, dated 9th January, 1965 directed that before remokal fines are actually imposed by the Jamabandi Officers they should, as a rule, issue a show-cause notice to the person concerned against whom remokal fine is proposed to be imposed. These instructions were issued on the principle of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard. In this case, no show-cause notice was issued and the petitioner has been condemned unheard. I, therefore, accept the revision petition and set aside the remokal action taken against him. If there is any unauthorised cultivation, fresh proceedings, against the concerned may be taken and proper procedure followed before imposition of the penalty.