AJMAL MIAN, C.J.--The petitioner, by this petition has impugned the two orders dated 8-7-1978 and 17-6-1979, passed by respondent 2, restoring the order of the respondent No.3. Dated 4-6-1977.
The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner was a claimant of non-agreed area and was transferred 186.3 acres in district Larkana, in 1959, in satisfaction of his claim. After the promulgation of MLRs 89 and 91, the petitioner surrendered the land, but through his application dated 24-1-62 exercised the option under paragraph 4 of the MLR-89 to purchase the surrendered land situated in Deh Safar Tunio, Taulka Warah, though the acreage was not mentioned in the above application, but according to the learned counsel for the petitioner and as per record the area was 86.20 acres. It appears that after the exercise of the above option by the petitioner, he received a challan for a sum of Rs.673.50, in which the area mentioned was 24.11 acres in place of 86.20 acres. The petitioner deposited the above sum on 29-3-62. It further seems that the question, whether the instalments were to be recovered from the claimants who wanted to purchase the surrendered land, was pending before the Central Government for consideration, whether to recover the amount or not to recover the amount. It further seems that in 1975, the above land settlement cases had become provincial subject. After that, the petitioner received a notice, dated 4-6-77, from the Deputy Commissioner demanding the payment of instalments and also received an order dated 4-6-77 passed by the Deputy Commissioner for cancellation of the allotment of the land on the ground of non-payment. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order had filed revision before the Board of Revenue, Sind, which was allowed by an order dated 10- 12-77, and whereby, the Deputy Commissioner was directed to receive the instalments w.e.f. 10-12-
77. After that the petitioner received a challan for a sum of Rs. 1,470/50. Which he deposited on 6-11-
77. It appears that thereafter respondent 2, upon an application from respondent 5 passed his first order dated- 8-7-68, restoring the Deputy Commissioner's order of cancellation dated 4-6-1977, and ordering of the allotment of the land to respondent 5 on the ground that he was 'Hari'. Against the above order, the petitioner filed a review application, which was also dismissed by respondent 2, on 17-6-79. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition.
We have heard Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. But nobody has appeared for the Official respondents and also for the private respondent No.5. In support of the above petition, Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had exercised option to purchase the surrendered land situated in Deh Safar Tunio, Taulka Warah, which was to the extent of 86.20 acres and that the mere fact that the office had issued that challan for lesser acreage, namely, 24.11 acres would not deprive the petitioner of his right under paragraph 4 of MLR 89 to purchase the above surrendered land, on the ground that he had failed to make the payment of 86.20 acres and made payment of the instalments of 24.11 acres. It has been further submitted that in any case as the date for the payment of instalments was extended by the Provincial Govt. By the order dated 17-4-1977 prescribing 10-12-1977 as the date for the commencing for the payment of instalments, the Deputy Commissioner could not have passed the order of cancellation on 4-6-1977, on the ground of non-payment of the instalments in respect of the above land measuring 86.20 acres. We have noticed that the above point has 'not been dilated by respondent 2, while restoring the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 4-6-1977. We would, therefore, allow the above petition and declare the above two impugned orders to be without lawful authority and would remand the case to respondent 2, with the direction to rehear the petitioner on the above point and also to hear respondent 5 and the department. The petition stands disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.