' This is a review petition against the order dated 7-11-1968 passed by the Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan whereby he rejected the petitioner's review petition regarding grant of S. No, 29/2, Deh Nidero, Taluka Hala, District Hyderabad.
2. The impugned order was passed on 7-11-1968 and the present petition has been submitted on 21-7-1971, i,e, after lapse of about 2 years and 7 months. The counsel for the petitioner urged the following points for admission of the petition :-
(i) Ashiq Hussain had sold the disputed land to Hussain Bux, vide a Registered Deed, dated 27-5- 1971 in violation of the conditions of grant (photostat copy of the deed produced).
(ii) The disputed land did not stand granted to the respondent and as such he was not expected to pay money for the land. The learned Chief Land Commissioner had erred in granting the disputed land to the respondent on the basis of such payment.
(ii) The petitioner had paid the instalments in respect of the land. (iv) The case may be taken up as review on suo motu side.
4. The petitioner was present before the Chief Land Commissioner alongwith his counsel on 7-11- 1968, when the impugned order was passed and announced in his presence and there was, therefore, no justification for the delay. Besides by virtue of the provisions of section 29(2) of Limitation Act, the provisions of 5 section of the Limitation Act do not apply to the A cases under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation and Rules, thereunder, as these are special enactments and the delay in filing the time-barred Review petition cannot be condoned. The review petition is, therefore, time-barred and is dismissed accordingly.
5. Suo motu action cannot be claimed as a right. The petitioner may, however, submit separately full facts justifying suo motu action and the question would be examined and disposed of separately.
Review petition dismissed, P D 1986 Rev. 88, [Sind] Present : Nusrat Hassan, Chief Land Commissioner ABDUL RASOOL-Petitioner versus LAND COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER- Respondents S. R.
0. R. No, 7 of 1970-71, decided on 23rd February, 1972.
(a) West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959- -- R. 11 (a)(b)(i) -Review-Order passed by predecessor-in-officeLand Commissioner, held, could not review such order without obtaining prior sanction of Chief Land Commissioner. [p. 89]i1
(b) Land Grant Policy- Sale Scheme, para. 33-Default in payment of arrears-Action, held, could be taken for rectification of default under para. 33 of Sale Scheme. [p. 89]B ORDER ' This is an appeal against the order (letter), dated 8th April, 1971 passed by the Commissioner, Hyderabad, whereby he rejected the request of appellant for restoration of S. No, 193/A, Deh Jagio, Taluka Samro.
2. The facts of the case are that the disputed S. No, was granted to the petitioner in the Land Reforms Scheme. The giant was cancelled due to non-payment of instalments. The land was thereafter disposed of in auction in January, 1969 and the respondent offered the highest bid but the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, refused to confirm the auction, vide his Letter No, 216-G/Rev.
65-TP, dated 4th August, 1969 on the ground that the area of the lot was below subsistence holding and the respondent was not the land owner of the Deh as required by condition No, 4 of the conditions of the auction. The respondent subsequently represented to the Land Commissioner that he held land in the Deh and that the auction may be confirmed. The petitioner also represented to Land Commissioner, that he had paid up all the arrears and that the land may be restored to him. The Land Commissioner rejected the request of the petitioner for restoration of the land and confirmed the auction in favour of the respondent, vide his 2 orders, dated 8th April, 1971.
3. The counsel for the petitioner urged the following points :-
(i) The disputed land stood granted to the petitioner. In 1964, there were floods in the area and the petitioner could not pay the instalments of land and land was cancelled in 1966. There was no compliance of paras. 33 and 34 of the Sale Scheme.
(ii) The petitioner was served with notice to pay the arrears by July, 1970 and be deposited arrears on 10th May, 1970. The land was restored to him and sale agreement executed on 30th July, 1970.
(iii) The land was put to auction in January, 1969, but the auction was not confirmed by Land Commissioner, vide his order, dated 4th August, on the ground that the lot was below subsistence holding and the auction was not confirmed to the land holders of the Deh Sohrab the auction purchaser put in an application on 5th May, 1970 to the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, and the Land Commissioner, has confirmed the auction on 8th April 1971 and; refused the restoration of the petitioner, First order, dated 4th August, 1969, was passed by Mr. Wasim the then Land Commissioner, Hyderabad and second order passed by Mr. Muhammad Yusuf, the present Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, Permission of the Chief Land Commissioner was not obtained by the Land Commissioner for review of the order of his predecessor as required by rule 11(a) (1) and (b) of the Land Reforms Rules, 1959, and the second order is therefore, defective on that account.
(iv) The Land Commissioner had knowledge that the present petitioner was the necessary party but he was not made party when the second order confirming the auction, was passed.
(v) The review petition before the Land ComMissioner was also time-barred.
4. The counsel for the respondent conceded that the order of the Land Commissioner confirming the auction in favour of the respondent was not maintainable as he had thereby reviewed the previous order, dated 4th August, 1969 passed by the then Land Commissioner whereby the auction was not confirmed and that this could be done by the Land Commissioner only after obtaining permission of the Chief Land Commissioner but the requisite permission was not obtained. He, however, stated that he had no objection if the S. No, in question was restored to the petitioner and reque.,ted that instead of the S. No, the respondent may be granted adjacent S. Nos.
197, 198 and 199 of the same Deh, which are lying vacant and can be granted to the respondent in upgrading scheme.
5. I have considered the arguments of the parties, and seen the record. The auction of tile disputed land made in favour of the respondent was not confirmed by the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad (Mr. S. M. Wasim, C. S. P.), vide his order, dated 4th August, 1969. Subsequently, the same auction has been confirmed in his favour by the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad (Mr. Muhammad Yusuf, C.
S. P.), vide his order, dated 8th April, 1971. According to rule 11(a)(b)(i) of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959 the Land Commissioner cannot review an order passed by his predecessor in office without first obtaining the sanction of the Chief Land Commissioner. In the present case no such sanction was obtained and as such the subseqent, order dated 8th April, 1971 passed by the Land Commissioner con-firming the auction is not maintainable and is set aside. The respondent does not stress for confirmation of the auction and has surrendered his rights in favour of the petitioner. The notice, dated 22nd January, 1970 issued by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Tharparkar to the petitioner indicates that the petitioner was required to pay up the arrears upto 31st July, 1970. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has cleared off all the arrears.
The land may, therefore, be restored to the petitioner. If, however, the petitioner has not paid the arrears or is still in default, action may be taken against him under para. 33 of the Sale Scheme for rectification of the default afresh. The request of the respondent for grant of S. Nos. 197, 198 and 199 of the same Deh in the upgrading scheme may be disposed of on merits and according to Government policy and procedure.