' In this case Mst. Durri is stated to have mutated her fifty paisas share in Survey Nos. 223 and 197 of Deh Wahur, Taluka Sehwan to petitioner in the year 1943. The mutation was made on the basis of statement to that effect before justice of peace in the presence of 2 witnesses. This mutation was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu in the year 1975 and the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu in his order dated 24-2-1976, upset the mutation, declaring it as fraudulent, made in collaboration with the Revenue Officials. In appeal the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad in his order dated 5-5-1977, confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu.
2. The main point in this case is :- ' Whether the Revenue Authorities correctly interfered in this case ?
3. I have heard the parties to the case through their counsel and consulted the documents also on 5-4-1980. The fifty paisas share in survey Nos. 223 and 197 were admittedly mutated in the year 1943 in favour of the petitioner Haji Ghulam Muhammad vide Entry No, 418, dated 7-8-1943. The petitioner has been in possession of the land all along. The petitioner is stated to be the step- brother of Mst. Durri. Mst. Durri inherited this land from her father Photo vide Entry No, 6 dated 4-8- 1943. The other sharer was her full-blood brother Soomar, Mst. Durri was then unmarried. She later on was married to .Khair Muhammad who is the father of the opponent Muhammad Bachal. Thus the matter appears to be more family dispute. Interference in such matters as relate to more than 12 years should not be the concern of the Revenue Authorities. In this case I feel that the Revenue Authorities have arrogated to themselves the powers that do not belong to them as they have upset the entries of 1943 A in the year 1976. The orders of the Deputy Commissioner. Dadu, late on confirmed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, are not clearly sustainable on this score only. Their orders, are therefore, vacated and the original entry maintained. The aggrieved party may if he so choses, seek redress in civil Court.
' The parties should be informed.