' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.--On 17-12-1990 when this petition came up for regular hearing before us, arguments of Mr. Ahmed Yousuf Ali Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitoners, Mr. A.G. Mangi, A.A.-G.
For official respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Azizur Rchman, learned counsel for the respondent No,10, Were heard. The respondents Nos.4 to 9 remained absent. On conclusion of the arguments, we dismissed the petition with no order as to costs by a short order. Reasons for the dismissal of the petition are given in this judgment.
2, Petitioner No,1 Mubeena Begum, daughter of Mohammad Sadiq Rajpar, has been gifted an area of 442-5 acres of land in deh Punhal Rajpar Taluka Faiz Gunj District Khairpur. It appears from the record that at the time the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 (MLR. 115) was promulgated, Mubeena Begum was minor. A declaration was required to be filed by the owners of agricultural land under MLR-115 but Mohammad Sadiq Rajpar, father of Mubeena Begum, did not file the required declaration under M L R -115 and consequently the Land Commissioner Hyderabad accorded sanction for prosecution of Mohammad Sadiq Rajpar under paragraph 30 of M L R 115 against Mohammad Sadiq Rajpar who was required to file prescribed declaration. This he did on 16-3-1978.
Certain alienations were shown by Mohammad Sadiq Rajpar in the said declaration form on behalf of Mubeena Begum. An area of 63-04 acres was resumed from Khata of Mubeena Begum after allowing her benefit of alienations to the extent of 78-19 acres.
3. After the land reforms introduced by M L R 115 in 1972, further land reforms were introduced in the country by the Land Reforms Act II of 1977. These land reforms curtailed further the maximum holding of land owners. Under Act II of 1977 also declarations were required to be filed by land- owners. On behalf of Mubeena Begum, declaration form was filed as required by Act II of 1977.
According to the petitioners (petitioner No,1 is Mubeena Begum and petitioners Nos.2 to 6 are Hafiz Mehmoodul Hassan and others). Mubeena Begum had executed a sale agreement in respect of 100 acres of her land on 5-61974 in favour of petitioners Nos.2 to 6 but this alienation was not disclosed in the declaration form filed under Act 11 of 1977. It may be mentioned here that the earlier declaration form under M L R 115 had not been filed in time but was filed much later in 1978 and in that declaration form also no mention was made about the sale agreement of 5-6-1974 by Mubeena Begum in favour of petitioners Nos.2 to 6. Under the second Land Reforms of 1977, it was found that Mubeena Begum held 100 acres of excess area above the permissible ceiling limit of 8000 P.I. Units and accordingly an area of 100 acres was resumed from her Khata in April 1978, and, after due publicity, the resumed area was disposed of to haris on 17-5-1978. The said haris have been impleaded as respondents Nos.4 to 10 in the present constitutional petition. Against the order of Deputy Land Commissioner for resumption of lands, 2 appeals were filed before the Land Commissioner. First appeal was under M L R 115 and it was filed by Mubeena Begum. The contention on her behalf in this appeal was that Mohammad Sadiq Rajpar, father of Mubeena Begum, had not been heard and no choice was obtained from him regarding the land to be surrendered and land to be retained in view of the orders passed under M L R 115 for resumption of excess area. By order dated 21-121980, the Land Commissioner Sukkur Division dismissed the appeal holding as follows:-- "I have gone through the impugned order dated 13-4-1978, passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Khairpur, and observed that despite issue of notices duly served upon the father of the declarant, Mohammad Sadiq Rajpar, nobody attended the Court with the result that the Deputy Land Commissioner Khairpur, was constrained to pass an ex-parte order dated 13-4-1978, under M L R 115 whereby he resumed an area of 63-04 acres. This land stands allotted to the tenants since then after observing all the formalities. The appeal under M L R 115 against the order dated 13-4- 1978 passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Khairpur was filed on 21-2-1980. There is no provision under the Land Reforms Rules condone the delay. Accordingly the appeal in rejected as hopelessly time-barred and in the result the order of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Khairpur dated 13-4-1978 is upheld."
' This order of the Land Commissioenr was confirmed in revision filed by the petitioners by the Chief Land Commissioner Sindh by order dated 10,5-1982. ' The orders passed by the Land Reforms Authorities under M L R 115 against Mubeena Begum have been challenged in the present constitutional petition. We find no merit in the challenge of the petitioners against the orders passed by the Land Reforms Authorities under M L R 115 against Mubeena Begum. The record shows that, according to the lands standing in the name of Mubeena Begum in the official record, the excess area over and above the maximum limit that could be retained under M L R 115 was ordered to be resumed. Thereafter further action was taken for actual resumption of excess area. For this purpose notices were issued to Mohammad Sadiq Rajpar, father of Mubeena Begum, to exercise his choice for surrender and retention of exess/permitted area but he did not appear despite service of notice on him. In the circumstances, required action for actual resumption of excess area was taken by the Deputy Land Commissioner. After this exercise had been completed, the excess area was granted to the heirs in accordance with the prescribed procedure after the due publicity. In our view, no illegality has been committed by the Land Reforms Authorities in passing orders determining the entitlement of Mubeena Begum and resumption of excess area under M L R 115.
4. The other appeal was filed by the petitioners against the orders passed by Deputy Land Commissioner regarding the entitlement of Mubeena Begum and resumption of excess area under Act II of 1977. The case of the petitioner was, as observed earlier, that on 5-6-1974 Mubeena Begum executed a sale agreement in favour of other petitioners in respect of 100 acres of her land.
Admittedly, this sale transaction was not disclosed by Mubeena Begum in her declaration form filed under Act II of 1977 and in the circumstances her entitlement was determined by the Deputy Land Commissioner on the basis of the official records and her declaration form filed under Act II of 1977. In our view, Mubeena Begum cannot make a grievance against the Land Reforms Authorities for not considering the said sale transaction while determining her entitlement under Act II of 1977 inasmuch as neither in declaration form nor in the official record any reference was made or existed about this transaction. The Deputy Land Commissioner found that Mubeena Begum held 100 acres of excess area and accordingly such excess area was ordered to be resumed under Act II of 1977. In the appeal filed under Act II of 1977 before the Land Commissioner, the purchasers of the aforesaid lands joined Mubeena Begum as co-appellant. Mr. Ahmed Yousuf Ali Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that a sale transaction has been executed in 1974 i,e. During the prescribed period under Act II of 1977, in favour of the other petitioners by Mubeena Begum and .Though Mubeena Begum may be condemned on account of non-disclosure of this transaction in her declaration form filed under Act II of 1977, the other petitioners who had purchased the said 100 acres of land could not be condemned unheard. In support of this proposition learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Yousuf Khan v. Chairman, Federal Land Commission (1988 SCMR 611). Reliance was also placed on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Mehfoozur Rehman Baber v. Federal Land Commission (PLD 1980 Karachi 487).
5. An alienee of land from a declarant is entitled to a hearing even if the declarant thus not disclosed such alienation in his declaration form under M L R 115 or under Act II of 1977. Neither M L R 115 nor Act II of 1977 requires any hearing to be granted to such alianee but such alienee acquires valuable rights in property and under the principles of natural justice, the alienee is entitled to a hearing before final orders are passed to affect his rights. However, such hearing can be granted at the appellate stage and it is not necessary that the matter should be remanded to the authority passing the original order which in this case is the Deputy Land Commissioner.
6. In this case, the other petitioners who are alleged to have purchased 100 acres of land under a sale agreement executed on 5-6-1974 themselves filed the appeal alongwith Mubeena Begum before the Land Commissioner. From the impugned order dated 21-12-1980 of the Land Commissioner it follows that a full hearing was granted by Land Commissioner to all the petitioners including the purchasers. They were also allowed to produce all documents on which reliance had been placed by the petitioners.
' In the circumstances, no grievance can be made by the purchasers that hearing had not been granted to them. In fact in the memo of petition, no grievance had been made that a proper hearing had not been given to the petitioners by the Land Commissioner.
7. Mr. Ahmed Yousuf All Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioners, had argued that petitioners Nos.2 to 6 had filed a suit against Mubeena Begum in the Civil Court on 27-9-1978 for specific performance of-the agreement of sale dated 5-6-1974 and the suit was decreed on 31-1-1979. Mr. Ahmed Yousuf Ali Rizvi conceded that the decree passed in the civil suit was not binding on the Land Commission Authorities but submitted that the said decree supports and confirms the case of the co-petitioners that the transaction of 1974 was a genuine transaction and they had purchased the aforesaid land. This aspect of the matter has also been dealt with by Land Commissioner in the order dated 21-12-1980 whereby he had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners under Act II of 1977.
' It had been noticed by the Land Commissioner that the suit had been filed after the land had been resumed and disposed of in favour of the tenants and that neither the Land Commission Authorities nor the tenants to whom the resumed lands had been granted were made parties. The relevant part of the order dated 21-12-1980 of the Land Commissioner is reproduced here:- "Civil suit is not relevant inasmuch as neither the Land Commission Authorities were cited as a party in the said suit. The present suit is not operative against them under the law. Even the tenants/respondents have not been made parties. This clandestine made in which this suit was filed and the fact Mst. Mubeena Begum is shown as minor whereas in the aforesaid suit she has been mentioned as major and the sale-deed is also signed by her as a major, go in the disfavour of the appellant. The Advocate for the respondents further argued that the appellant knew this fact and to overcome this hurdle, she got a sale certificate of ownership of the aforesaid land from tapedar of tappo Usman Kullo although the land is situated in dch Punhal Rajpar for which a different tapedar is posted. This fact was not brought to the notice of Civil Court, otherwise there was little possibility of its being decreed. He further added that a decree of the Civil Court Gambat has been placed on record wherein Hafiz Mahmoodul Hassan and others have been allowed to purchase an area of about 100.00 acres on the basis of an agreement of sale purported to have been executed by the appellant in favour of Hafiz Mahmoodul Hassan and others so far back as 5- 6-1974.
' The learned Advocate for respondents stated that the above decree has been obtained by the appellants by suppressions the facts of the resumption of this area and its consequent grant to the respondents/tenants. The learned Advocate for respondents further stated that the agreement is alleged to have been executed on 5-6-1974, while in the declaration form filed in 1972, no mention of this alienation is made by the appellant. Besides, at the time when the above sale took place, the Khata already stood mutated in favour of the tenants/respondents and the matter as such attained finality in their favour to the knowledge of the appellants. Moreover, there is bar of jurisdiction of all Courts in Land Reforms matter under para. 26 of MLR 115.
' I have verified the record and the impugned order dated 13-2-1980, passed by the D.L.C. Khairpur, which shows that the father of the declarant was allowed to exercise the choice three times viz. 20- 2-1980, 11-2-1980 and 13-2-1980, but he failed to avail of such concession. Accordingly, the appeal under Land Reforms Act-II of 1977, is rejected and the order of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Khairpur, is upheld. As the judgment was reserved, the parties be informed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Khairpur."
8. From the above it is apparent that weighty reasons have been given by the Land Commissioner for dismissal of the appeal of the petitioners. In our view no ground is made out for interference with the orders of the Land Commission Authorities.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition was dismissed but with no order as to costs.