' This is a revision petition against the order dated 28-5-1975 of the Commissioner, Hyderanad regarding Photi Khatabadal of deceased Allah Bachayo Jarwar in respect of lands in Deh Sorhandi and Dembari, Taluka Math.
2. The petitioner's attorney Abdul Haque is present with his counsel Mr. Habibullah Memon. Noor Muhammad attorney of respondents Mst. Asha daughter of Allah Bachayo is present in person.
Munshi Muhammad Tapedar is present with record. The remaining respondents are ab,ent without any intimation though served. The case is, therefore, proceeded against them ex parte. The counsel for the petitioner and Noor Muhammad have been heard and record perused.
3. The facts of the case are that the Mukhtiarkar Matli vide his order dated 19-c-1968, decided the Photi Khatabadal of Allah Bachayo and mutated the Khata of the land in the names of the following heirs :- (i)
(ii) #TBS
(iii) Son 0-35
(iv) Daughter 0-18
(v) -do--- 0-18
(vi) -do-- 0-17
(vii) Wife 0-12
(viii) #TBE
(ix) Muhammad Hashim
(x) Mst Asha
(xi) Mst. Rano
(xii) Mst. Hawa
(xiii) Mst. Asia ' The petitioner preferred by the Additional Deputy an appeal against the order which was rejected Commissioner-I, Hyderabad vide his order dated, 19-4-1974. He preferred a revision petition, which has been I rejected vide the impugned order.
4. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the deceased had gifted his land to the petitioner vide a gift deed dated 3-11-1965 and that the donee was in possession of the land and managing its cultivation and enjoying the produce since then. He also contends that the deceased had divk.Rced his wife Mst. Asia during his lifetime. The counsel has produced the photostat copies of the following documents in support of his contention :-
(i) The gift deed dated 3-11-1965.
(ii)Divorce deed dated 3-10-1965 and a certificate of the Chairman, Union Council about the divorce.
(iii) Affidavit dated 18-7-1963 of respondent Mst. Hava and Mst. Rano accepting the existence of the gift and surrendering in favour of the petitioner.
(iv) Two registered deeds dated 23-4-1970 and 18-5-1970 according to ' which the petitioner had leased out the lands as his lands.
' The counsel argues that the mutation was not sanctioned in Jalsa-eAam as required by section 42 of the Land Revenue ,Act, and they had no chance to put up their case there and, therefore, the mutation is not maintainable.
5. The respondent contends that the petitioner is brother of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and son of respondent No, 4 and he was managing the lands on their behalf as the respondents are Pardanashin ladies and were; therefore, prevented from managing the lands themselves.
6. I have considered the case. The documents putforth by the counsel for the petitioner require adjudication at appropriate level. The mutation had not been sanctioned in Jalsa-e-Aarn in contravention of th provisions of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act and this has obviously prejudiced the interests of the petitioner. Had it been sanctioned in Jalsa-e-Aam petitioner could have got an opportunity of putting up his vie point there. Besides, it is strange that the petitioner who is son of the deceased Khatedar was not even heard of associated with the PhotiKhatabadal.
' In view of this position, the mutation is not maintainable and is, therefore, set aside. The case is, remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Additional Deputy Commissioner-I, Hyderabad for decision afresh strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of law so that all the parties have due opportunity of being heard.