' This is a revision petition against the order of the Land Commissioner Multan, dated 18-3-1985 whereby he dismissed the time-barred appeal of the petitioners and upheld the order of Deputy Land Commissioner Sahiwal, dated 4-5-1972 vide which he calculated the P.I. Units of Peer Muhammad Zman Shah "deceased" declarant to the tune of 12442 PIU observing that Mutation No,82 of Chak No,49/G.B. Tehsil Sahiwal was held void by the Federal Land Commission, vide his order, dated 24-11-1976.
2. The facts of the case are that the bolding of Muhammad Zaman Shah deceased predecessor of the petitioners was determined under M.L.R:
115. His holding was held to be 223A 3K-8M equivalent to 12442 P.I. Units. The declarant had submitted petition on 7-4-1977 that he be allowed the benefit of additional 2000 P.I. Units on account of tube-well but neither submitted LR VII claiming additional area equal to 2000 P.I. Units on account of tube-well within the prescribed period from the issuance of letter No, DSH 905/72/3125-LC (II), dated 5-8-1972 from the Secretary Punjab Land Commission nor within 7 days from the order of Member Federal Land Commission, dated 21-11-1979. The D.L.C.
Did not allow him the concession and directed to resume an area equal to 442 P.1. Units which was with him in excess of the prescribed limits of 12000 P.I. Units. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners filed appeal. The Land Commissioner Multan holding the appeal barred by time dismissed it. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and gone through the grounds of revision. He contended that the declarant had made certain transfers which were examined under MLR 115 and held void and the area of the declarant (Muhammad Zaman Shah) was determined to be 193-A-5K-8M equivalent to 10689 P.I. Units by the Deputy Land Commissioner on 12-6-1972 and the declarant had to surrender nothing. He contended that on this account the declarant did not find it necessary to file LR.VII for concession on account of tube-well. He contended that the Member Federal Land Commission on 24-11-1976 held the transaction made through Mutation No,82 of Chak No,49/CD as void and the area involved in the transaction was added to the holding of the declarant and thus the holding of the declarant was determined to have 12442 P.I. Units. He contended that the declarant had installed tube-well in Sqr. No,29/16 in Chak No,49 Tehsil Sahiwal since before Rabi 1968 and was entitled for the concession of 2000 P.I. Units on this account. He argued that the order: passed by the Member Federal Land Commission on 24-11-1976 was without notice to the declarant. He argued that the declarant applied on 7-4-1977 to the D.L.C. For concession of 2000 P.1. Units on account of tube-well but he rejected it on 4-5-1977 holding that it should have been filed within 7 days from the issuance of Government instructions in 1972. He contended that the declarant died on 16-10-1977 and during his life-time he did not intimate the petitioners about the rejection of the application and the resumption of the land. He contended that it came to notice on 25-9-1984 when the land was being resumed. He urged that the petitioners filed appeal but it was dismissed being barred by time. He argued that the impugned order be set aside.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the record of the case and the comments offered by the D.L.C. The ownership of the declarant was determined as less than the prescribed limits and the transaction made by him was held as valid by the D.L.C. And the Land, Commissioner in 1972. It was in 1976 when the Member Federa Land Commission held the mutation as void and the ownership of the petitioner was determined to have 12442 P.I. Units and he had to surrender 442 P.I.U nits. The declarant had installed tube-well in hi holding but did not file LR VII on the assumption that his holding did not exceed the limits. He is allowed to file LR VII and the D.L.C. Would examine the case and decide it on merits. The revision petition is thus disposed of.