' These are three identical review petitions against the two orders, dated 4-11-1969 and 14-11-1969 of the Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore, whereby he dismissed the petitioner's revision petitions regarding restoration of land in Deh Badhari, Taluka Math, District Hyderabad.
2. The facts of the cases are that Jurio, predecessor-in-interest of Karim Bux, etc. Petitioners in Case No (iii) above and the petitioners in the other two cases, were granted resumed land ranging from 14 to 15 Acres each under the sale and upgrading schemes. They sold the land to the respondents, vide registered sale-deeds in 1966. Full purchase price was paid after the sale, and the Khatas were mutated in favour of the respondents in 1967. The petitioners preferred appeals to the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, that fraud had been committed with them and that they had not sold the lands but subsequently, withdrew from their appeals, which were. Therefore recorded by the Deputy Land Commissioner, vide his order, dated 6-8-1968. They preferred revision petitions to the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, which were rejected by him, vide his order dated 16-4-1969. They filed a second revision petitions to the Chief Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore, which were dismissed by him vide the impugned orders.
3. (a) The counsel for the petitioners urged the following points :-
(i) The petitioners were sold the land as sitting tenants in 1959 and they were in cultivating possession of the land. In 1966, they were in need of money. The respondents were Zamindars and were influential persons. The petitioners had taken loans from them and had signed agreements with the respondents for payments of the loans on 15-6-1966. They were told by the respondents that the agreements did not constitute sale of the lands. The petitioners bad made final payment of the land after 15 days when they came to know that fraud had been committed with them.
(ii) The possession of the land had been taken away by the respondents from the petitioner forcibly.
(iii) The petitioners were coerced to withdraw their appeals before the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad and the withdrawals were not voluntary.
(iv) The price of the land had not been paid and the land could not be sold by the petitioners vide para. 32 (c) of the Sale Scheme. The right course would have been that action should have been taken against the petitioners under para. 34 of the Scheme with the show-cause notice but this was not done, and instead the sales were allowed to stand. The land belonged to the Land Commission. - The petitioners had no proprietary rights in the land. The sale of the land to the respondents by the petitioners was, therefore, illegal.
(v) The respondents were Zamindars and were not eligible to purchase the land.
(vi) The petitioners had taken up loan from the Agricultural Development Bank and the land was mortgaged with the Bank for that loan. The land could be sold by the petitioners before redemption of the mortgage.
(vii) The counsel for the petitioners showed the following notices issued by the Special Mukhtiarkar for Recovery of A. D. Bank dues, in support of his contention that the petitioners had taken up the loan from the Bank :- Name of the defaulter Amount due
(i) Haji Rs, 2,925
(ii) Siddiq Rs, 2,900 ' The counsel, however, conceded that the petitioners had executed the agreements with the respondent which were for sale of the land but argued that these agreements were executed as a security for payment of the loan.
4. The counsel for the respondents urged the following points :-
(i) The points urged by the counsel for the petitioners were already ,:onsidered and rejected by the learned Chief Land Commissioner at the time of hearing of the revision petitions and no new point had been urged for review of the order.
(ii) The petitioners were in arrears of the price of the land and were not able to pay the same. They were not interested in the land as well. They had voluntarily sold the land to the respondents. The sales were bona fide. The respondents had made the final payment of the grants. The petitioners had voluntarily with drew from their appeals before the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad.
The Chief Land Commissioner had already condoned the irregularity, if any, in the transaction.
(iii) The petitioners had committed breach of conditions of the grant. The breach was not rectifiable. They had received full consideration for the land from the respondents. Under these circumstances, the only action, which could be taken under para. 34 of the Scheme in the present case would be to impose a penalty against the petitioners but it would not be proper to set aside the sale made by the petitioners to the respondents.
(iv) The loan taken by the petitioners from the Agricultural Development Bank would subsist against the petitioners and would not effect the sale of the land."
3. I have considered the arguments put forth by the parties. The main issue agitated by the counsel for the petitioners in the case is that grants were not fully paid-up at the time these were transferred to the respondents but this issue was considered by the learned Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan at the time of hearing of the revision petitions and he had, vide the impugned orders, condoned the irregularly if any in the transaction. The petitioners have alienated the land to the respondents and they cannot back out from the bargain. They withdrew the appeal filed by them before the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad. There is no satisfactory explanation for withdrawing the appeals. Consequently, this chain of petitions from them appear to be a device to get back what was voluntarily given away by them to the respondents.
6. The other point agitated by the counsel was that the land could not be sold because of mortgage with Agricultural Development Bank. The legal position is that the land could not be alienated without permission of Deputy Land Commissioner and this, as stated earlier, has already been condoned by the Chief Land Commissioner, section 32 (c) does not prescribe any condition if the grantee proposes to mortgage the land for the purpose of obtaining loan for the development of the land from the Agricultural Development Bank which is a Government sponsored institution.
Consequently, if alienation of the land has been accepted by the Chief Land Commissioner and as the appellants also accepted the sale as valid by withdrawing their appeals from the Deputy Land Commissioner this argument of mortgage with Agricultural Development Bank cannot be made an excuse for considering the sale as null and void. Moreover, the counsel for the petitioners has shown notices for the payment of the arrears of the Agricultural Development Bank issued against only two of the petitioners and the notices did not show that the land was mortgaged with the Bank.
7. The petitioner's case had been heard at length by the Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan, at the time of hearing of the revision A petitions. Though the provisions of the rule 11 of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959 do not specifically lay down, yet as a general principle, the review of the order is sought for only on the consideration of a discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the parties or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record, which would have resulted in gross miscarriage of justice but no such exigency has been urged in the present review petitions.
8. In view of the above facts, there is no force in the review petitions, which are, therefore, dismissed accordingly.
Review ,