' This is a revision petition against the order dated 17-12-1974, of the Land Commissioner, Sind, Hyderabad, upholding the appeal of the respondents in respect of grant of land in Deh Sunhari, Taluka Tando Allahyar.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the disputed land was granted to the petitioners under the Land Reforms Regulation No, 64 of 1959, as under :-
1. Shahhaz Khan B. Nos. 661/1, 591/1, 2, 3. 14-08 acres
2. Rahim Bux Khan B. Nos. 705/3, 591/4, 592 1, 4, 16-00 acres.
3. Ghanwar Khan B. Nos. 685/3, 4, 592/2,3, 15-36 acres.
617/1.
' The petitioners are reported to have sold the land in dispute to the respondents in sum of Rs, 10,000 and 20,00J vide sale agreements executed on 4-3-1967 before the Oath Commissioner, Tando Muhammad Khan. The D. L. C., therefore, cancelled the grants of the petitioners on account of infringement of the conditions of the grant and directed that the land should be disposed of afresh. The parties have been agitating in the case at different levels. Finally, the case was remanded by the learned Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Sind to the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, for fresh decision on the ground that proper procedure as prescribed in para. 33 of the sale scheme was not adopted while cancelling the grant of the petitioners.
Consequently the Deputy Land Commissioner, heard the parties and restored the grant to the petitioners after imposing penalty of Rs, 50 on each of them. The respondents then preferred appeal. The same was upheld by the Land Commissioner, Sind, vide the impugned order and the grants of the petitioners were cancelled and the land was ordered to be disposed of afresh in open Katchery. The petitioners have now preferred the present revision against that order.
3. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. Th file of D. L. C. Shows that enquiry was held by the then Mukhtiarkar, Tando Muhammad Khan in the year 1968, and he had vide his Report No, 748 dated 1-4-1969, found that the sale agreements had actually bee executed by the grantees and possession had been transferred by them to the purchasers (present respondents). According to para. 33 of the Sal Scheme, the land is not liable to resumption if the breach Is capable of rectification. In the present case, ths1 possession had already passed on to the present alienees in consequence of the alienation and a such there could hardly be any scope for rectification of the breach of the terms and conditions of the grant. It could not, therefore, be regularized by imposition of a penalty in terms of para. 33(a) of the Sale Scheme. There was, therefore, no alternative but to resume the land for infringement under para. 33(b) of the Scheme, and, as such, the order passed by the learned Land Commissioner is quite appropriate. The revision petition merits no consideration and is accordingly rejected.
Revision rejected.