' These are three identical revision petitions against the order, dated 27-4-1970 of Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, whereby he remanded three appeals of (i) of Karim Bux, (ii) Ghulam Rasool and (iii) Sain Bux, regarding grant of land in Deh Dumbalo, Tal uka Matli to the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad for fresh decision.
2. The facts of the case are that Veersi, Rooro, and Bhoomo, the present petitioners were granted resumed land in Deh Dumbalo, Taluka Math I as under :- {{TABLE}} Sr. Name of Under Sale Scheme Under Total No, Grantee, Upgrading Scheme 80 REv. ALL PAKISTAN LEUAL DECISIONS VOL. XXXVIII Rooro 138/1, 106, 107/3 107/2, 4-00, 16-00 4-00, 4-00, 4-00, 4-00 12-00
(iii) Bhoomo 108/3, 4-00, 91/3, 12-00 4-00 8-00 90/3 16-00 4-00 {{TABLE}} ' Karim Bux, etc., the present respondents, moved the Land Reforms Authorities in the year 1961 that Veersi, etc., were their sarriro haris and that they were real Hans of the land and it may be granted to them. Veersi, etc., are also stated to have given statements before the Mukhtiarkar, Math I on 22- 4-1961 to that effect. The request of Karim Bux, etc., for transfer of the land in their names was not granted by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, vide his two orders, dated 15-8-1961 and 19-8-1961, but the grants of land made to Veersi, etc., were also cancelled as firstly they had not executed sale agreements and secondly they were not entitled to the grants being sarriro haris as admitted by them. The Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad further directed that the land so becoming available should be utilised according to the orders of the West Pakistan Land Commission.
3. Subsequently, the disputed land was sold to Karim Bux, etc., by Assistant Land Commissioner, Tando under the Sale Scheme as under :- {{TABLE}} Sr. And date of Name of S. Nos. From Other Total No, ALC., Tando's order. Grantee disputed land undisputed land
(I) LR/4655. Karim Bux 134/1, 135/2.
3-10-1961.
4-0 3-32 135/3 15-31 3-27 135/3-A 137/2 0-20 3-32 -15-31
(ii) LR/4652 SaM Bux 108/3,=4-00 4.00 3-10-1961 91/3, 4, 90/3 8-00 4-00 16-00 =12-00 LR/4656 Ghulam 138/1, 106/4 Rasool 3-10-1961 4-00 4-00 107/2=12-00 12-00 4-00 {{TABLE}}
4. Veers', etc. Preferred appeals to the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad on 23-7-1966 against grant of land to Karim Bux, etc., but their appeals were dismissed by the Deputy Land Commissioner as time. Barred. Veersi, etc. Then filed revision petitions to the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, which were accepted by him, vide his order, dated 17-7-1967 and the grant of the disputed land was restored to Veersi, Rooro and Bhoomo, the present petitioners.
5. Karim Bux, etc. Filed a revision before the Chief Land Commissioner, Lahore, who remanded the case to the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, for fresh decision as the provisions of para 33 of the Sale Scheme were not kept in view while cancelling the grants of Veersi, etc. And also because both the parties had produced Deeds of Agreements executed by them in respect of the same land.
6. In consequence of the remand the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad passed an order, dated 3-4-1969, calling upon Veersi, etc. To deposit arrears within 3 months failing which their grants would be cancelled as required by para. 33 of the Scheme. Karim Bux, etc. Preferred appeals to the Land Commissioner, and the case was remanded by the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, vide his order, dated 27-4-1970 to the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, for fresh decision.
Veersi, etc. Have now submitted revision petition against this order of the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad.
7. I had heard the parties at great length on 10-3-1971. Briefly the points urged by both the parties were as follows :- A. Petitioners (Veersi etc.) :
(i) It is not a fact that Veersi, etc. Had failed to execute deeds of agreement and cancellation of their grants on that account was unjustified, (Counsel produced copies of agreements executed by RO .00 and Veersi on 24-11-1960 on 24-11-1960 in respect of the d'.Sputed land. No agreement of Bhoomo was produced).
(i:j Veersi, etc. Were not Sarriro Hans of Karim Bux, etc. And they had not surrendered grants in favour of Karim Bux, etc. They were sitting tenants of the land.
(iii) Veersi, etc. Had deposited their copies of deeds of agreement with Karim Bux, etc. As a security for payment of loan taken by them but the agreement were not returned to them by Karim Bux, etc., even after clearance of the loan.
(iv) The Chief Land Commissioner, had, vide his order, dated 6-11-1967, directed that notice under para. 33 of the Sale Scheme was necessary before cancellation of grant of Veersi, etc. And that it could not be argued now before the authorities that the notice was not necessary.
(v) The fact that Karim Bux, etc. Had paid full price of the land and that the Khata had been mutated in their favour in no way affected the merits of the case of Veersi, etc. As the grants made to Karim, etc. Were without any force of law.
(vi) Veersi, etc. Have made payments of all outstanding instalments. B. Respondents (Karim Bux, etc.) :
(i) There is no proof that Veersi, etc. Had any dealings with Karim Bux, etc. And that this point had been brought out only for the first time.
(ii) It was also not proper to argue that any fraud had been committed with Veersi, etc. By Karim Bux, etc., in collusion with the Subordinate Revenue Officers as all the Revenue Officer could not be dishonest.
(iii) Veersi, etc. Had produced copies of the deeds of agreement also ,fOr the first time. Account Books are issued after execution .Of Deeds of Agreement. Two copies of Deeds of agreement are prepared and copy is to be sent to the Sub-Assistant Land Commissioner, who has to issue Account Books accordingly. Veersi, etc., had not shown as to when the Account Books were obtained and when the payments were made by them. They bad not made any complaint earlier that Actount Books were not received by them. Actually they were not interested in getting the land Grants of Veersi, etc., were cancelled on 15-8-1961 arid the land was granted to Karim Bux, 'etc. On 3-10-1961. Appeals were preferred by Veersi, etc., before Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad on 23-7-1966, after lapse of five years.
(iv) Karim Bux, etc., had made full payment on 28-9-1966 and they continued in possession of the land since 1961. Veersi, etc., had left away and relinquished their interests in the land. Land Commission had no jurisdiction now as full payments had been made.
(v) Before cancellation, notice was to be given to purchaser in possession, vide para. 33 of Sale Scheme. The issue of notice was discretionary. Veersi, etc. Were not purchasers as they had not got the agreements executed and there was, therefore, no non-compliance of the orders. They could be recorded as Arzi Maliks after execution of agreements and they were not recorded as such in the records ;
(vi) Veersi, etc., had not up to date agitated that they were not served with notices. They had also not preferred any appeal against cancellation of their own grants but had preferred appeals against grant of land to Karim Bux etc. (vii)Revision is always on points of law and Revisional Authorities are not to go into facts.'
8. Ordinarily I would not have gone into facts of case at revisional stage but the counsel for the petitioners insisted that the final verdict may be given in the case as the parties have been fighting the litigations since last 10 years. The case has been heard twice by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Land Commissioner and once by the Chief Land Commissioner. I, therefore, feel that this request of the poor petitioners deserves a sympathetic consideration and it will be in the interest of both the parties that the decision of these cases is not delayed or p olonged by any more remands, and it is decided on the basis and merits of facts already on record.
9. I have considered the arguments put forth by the parties and seen the record. Out of the three petitioners, names of Bhoomo and Rooro were only entered as the sitting tenants in LC-IX of the Deh and the name of Veersi was not contained there. Rooro and Bhoomo had, vide their statements, dated 22-4-1961 before the Mukhtiarkar, Matli stated that they were sarriro haris of the land and that Karim Bux was the original Hari. Since name of Veersi was not entered in LC-IX, he was not entitled to grant of the land. As regards Rooro and Bhoomo, they had also themselves admitted before the Mukhtiarkar, Matli that they were sarriro haris and as such they were also not entitled to grant of the land.
10. The Chief Land Commissioner, had, vide his order, dated 6-11.1967 directed that notice should have been issued to Veersi, etc. Under para. 33 of Sale Scheme before cancellation of their grants.
The grants of Veersi, etc., were cancelled firstly because they had failed to execute agreements and secondly because according to their own admission they were sarriro ' haris.
' Para. 33 of the Scheme reads as follows :- "When the Deputy Land Commissioner or the Assistant Lend corn. Missioner specially empowered by the Deputy Land Commissioner, is satisfied that a purchaser in possession of the land has committed a breach of the terms and conditions laid down in this Scheme or has failed to pay four consecutive instalments, he may Oar giving the purchaser an opportunity to-appear and state his objections- (a)impose on the purchaser a penalty not exceeding one hundred rupees ; or (b)order the resumption of the land."
In the present cases, the grants of the petitioners were cancelled by Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad inter alit: as they were not considered entitled to grants of the lands being sarriro haris (which fact has been admitted as stated above before the Mukhtiarkar) and such, I a afraid provisions of para. 33 are not attracted to these cases and notice under para. 33 was not necessary in these cases.
11. Karim Bux, Ghulam Rasool and Sain Bux were not entered as tenants in LC-IX. Their request for grant of the land on Harap rights was rejected by Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, vide his Orders No, LR-MLR/9/2618 of 1961, dated 19-8-1961 and No, LR-MTL/2577 dated 15-8-1961. Since their request for grant of land on Harap right was rejected by the Deputy Land Commissioner, the Assistant Land Commissioner, Tando was not competent to grant the land to them. Accordingly to orders of the Land Commission, the lands of cancelled grants were to be put to auction and the order of the Assistant Land Commissioner, Tando, granting the disputed land to the respondents by private negotiation was in contravention of the orders of the Land Commission.
12. In view of paras. 9 to 11 above, am of the opinion that the : grants made to both the parties were not proper and that the notice under para. 33 of the Sale Scheme was not necessary before cancellation of grantsi of the petitioners.
13. The counsel for the respondents had argued that the respondents had paid full price of the land the Khata of the land had been mutated on their favour and that their grants could not be cancelled. In these, cases, the grants made to the respondents were ab initio illegal as these' were in contravention of the policy/instructions of the Land Commission All such grants are subject to the orders passed in appeal/revision/ review. The fact that the respondents had paid the full price could not prevent the higher authorities from exercising their jurisdiction in revision/ review, if the grants were made contrary to the standing instructions.
14. In view of the above facts and in exercise of powers vested in me under rules 11(1) and 12(i) of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959. I hold that the grants of the petitioners were rightly cancelled by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad in 1961. I further hold that the grants made to the respondents were not proper and, therefore, set aside the Order Nos. 4655, 4652 and 4656, dated 3-10-1961 of the Assistant Land Commissioner, Tando granting disputed land to Karim Bux, Sain Bux and Ghulam Rasool. I further direct that the land should be disposed of by open auction in accordance with the policy/instructions of the Land Commission.