MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--Mst. Basi Bai claimed to have purchased agricultural land situate in Deh Lund Taluka Khipro in the year 1970 by registered sale deed from one claimant Muhammad A.I son of Abu Bakar who held permanent allotment order of the said land from the Rehabilitation Department. Petitioners asserted that huge amount was spent in the development of the land so purchased. In September, 1971 one Muhammad Ismail son of Sardar Khan Kaim Khawani, resident of Khipro tried to dispossess the petitioners, who being sons of the above-named Mst. Basi Bai inherited the said property from her. Therefore, the petitioners approached the Mukhtiar kar, Khipro who directed Muhammad Ismail not to disturb petitioners' possession. Later on Muhammad Ismail again threatened to eject the petitioners alleging that he was the attorney of Yusuf Khan respondent No.1 to whom the land, in question, had been allotted. Jhamandas petitioner No. 3 submitted an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar to restrain the respondent from interfering with their possession, and accordingly, a direction was issued to the respondent in this behalf.
2. It is stated that on 16-10-1972 the Mukhtiar kar, Khipro changed the Record of Rights in respect of the aforesaid land in favour of Yusuf Khan without giving any notice to the petitioners' predecessor---in-interest. The matter was brought to the notice of the A.C. Sanghar by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners for correcting the mutation and for taking action against the intruders. Therefore, entries in the Record of Rights were cancelled from the names of respondents Nos.1 and 2 namely Yusuf Khan and Habib Khan. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration and injunction to the effect that order dated 18-1-1975 was illegal and without lawful authority and for restraining respondents Nos.4 and 5 (not properly numbered in the petition) from cancelling the mutation in their names. The learned Senior Civil Judge, however, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29-1-1977. Appeal against the said judgment and decree was filed before the learned District Judge, Sanghar who, per order dated 13-8-1979, dismissed the appeal holding that the impugned order dated 18-1-1975 has been passed on the revenue side by the learned A.C and the appellants, according to their statement, had already sold the suit property and as such, had no cause of action in the matter. Respondents thereafter preferred second appeal before the Sind High Court which was treated as revision and per impugned judgment dated 21-4-1986 the learned High Court allowed the revision application, setting aside the judgments of the Courts below and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that order dated 18-1-1975 passed by the learned A.C. Sanghar was without jurisdiction.
3. Learned counsel contended that the learned Judge erred in reversing the concurrent finding of the Courts below without taking into consideration that the impugned order dated 18-1-1975 only purported to cancel the mutations effected in favour of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 and it did not, in any manner, amount to cancellation of the so-called allotment in favour of the said respondents by the Settlement authorities, and as such it was evident that respondent No.3 exercised powers granted by the Land Revenue Act and not under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act; that the learned High Court Judge also gravely erred in failing to appreciate that decisions of the Revenue Officers were subject to the incident of appeal under the Land Revenue Act and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in respect of the said matters was barred by the provisions of section 11 of the Sind Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 and section 173 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967.
4. We have examined the contentions inter alia and find that there is sufficient force in the arguments that the concurrent findings of the Courts below have been interfered by the learned High Court Judge on the revisional side. We are of the view that the matter needs consideration.
Leave granted. Security rupees two thousand. Appeal to be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if desired.