1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This leave petition is from the order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court setting aside the impugned order of the Chief Land Commissioner and remanding the case to him for disposal according to law.
2. The dispute is about the mutation of the share of the petitioner in the property left by his deceased father Sardar Ghous Bakhsh Mazari. On 2nd November 1959, the Land Commissioner of Bahawalpur had provisionally allowed the petitioner a share of inheritance in the property of his deceased father, subject to the condition that he must obtain a civil Court decree that he was the son of Sardar Ghous Bakhsh Mazari deceased. The petitioner having been dissatisfied by this order approached the Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan on a revisional application and the latter by his order datedthe2lstMay 1960, set aside the order of the Land Commissioner. The Chief Land Commissioner however, directed that, "if any of the co-sharers wish to contest the right of the petitioner to his share of the pro--perty it was for him to obtain such a decree from the competent Court." It has transpired, however, that the petitioner never made respondent No. 2, Mst. Anwar Khatoon or the Court of Wards as parties in the revision before the Chief Land Commissioner.
3. It appears that Sardar Ghaus Bakhsh deceased also left two daughters, namely, respondent No. 2 and Mst. Hijab Khatoon. On the death of the propositus on the 31st October 1955, the Court of Wards had taken over the management of the property and the petitioner had succeeded in obtaining mutation of his share in his favour from the Assistant Collector on the 20th May 1957.
4. Mst. Hijab Khatoon thereafter filed a declaratory suit challenging the said` mutation and asking for its cancellation. Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal from the order of the Assistant Collector dated the 20th May 1957 before the Collector. The Collector found that the petitioner was not his son and accordingly directed cancellation of the impugned mutation. The petitioner challenged the order of the Collector before the Commissioner and the latter by his order dated the 15th March 1958, held that until the decision of the suit filed by Mst. Hijab Khatoon the question of mutation should be kept pending. Respondent No. 2 went up in revision before the Board of Revenue from the order of the Commissioner dated 15-3-1958 and the Board ordered that entire property should be mutated in the name of the Court of Wards until the question of inheritance was decided by the civil Court. Mst. Hijab Khatoon accordingly withdrew her suit.
5. Martial Law Regulation No. 64 came into force in February 1969 and according to its requirements declaration in Forms L. C.-I and L. C.-II were to be submitted in regard to entire land left by the said propositus. The Deputy Land Commissioner allowed the petitioner to file the required declaration subject to certain conditions, namely, that the acceptance of the petitioner's declaration was subject to the determination of his entitlement by civil Court and that until then he would not be given possession.
6. The petitioner filed an appeal from this order before the land Commissioner who dismissed it as time-barred. The petitioner, therefore, filed a revision before the Chief Land Commissioner without making respondent No. 2 and the Court of Wards as parties and the Chief Land Commissioner allowed the revision. The respondent No. 2 then filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court and it was allowed by the impugned order.
7. The learned Judges of the High Court found that the impugned order of the Chief Land Commissioner was passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the interested persons, namely, respondent No. 2 a daughter of deceas--ed, and the Court of Wards who had been managing the property, were not made parties in the revision before the Chief Land Commissioner. This position was not disputed before the High Court.
8. The learned Judges of the High Court further held that the impugned order of the Chief Land Commissioner was passed in violation of the express provision of Rule 12(3) of the West Pakistan Land Reform Rules, 1959 which debarred the Chief Land Commissioner or a Land Commissioner from passing any order refusing or modifying an order affecting any person without affording him an opportunity of being heard.
9. The High Court accordingly set aside the order of the Chief Land Commissioner and remanded the case to him for disposal according to law before whom the revision application of the petitioner would be deemed to be pending. The learned Judges further directed that the Chief Land Commissioner would issue notices to all the parties concerned with a view to afford th4in an opportunity of being heard.