' HAZIQUL KHAIRI, J.--By this petition the petitioner has impugned order dated 24-2-1979 and 30-3- 1983 passed by the respondent No,3 namely the Land Commissioner Hyderabad Division and order dated 17-3-1980 passed by the respondent No,3 namely Deputy Land Commissioner, Sanghar as having being passed without any lawful authority, without jurisdiction, of no legal effect and praying for their quashment.
2. The petitioners' case is that petitioner Nasrullah Khan Mari received agricultural land measuring 297-04 acres situated in Deh Bahadul Taluka Tando Adam district Sanghar from his father named Haji Ghanwar Khan by way of gift. The said Haji Ghanwar Khan expired on 10-4-1971. He by a will appointed Mst. Sahibzadi petitioner No,2 mother of petitioner No,1 as guardian of person and property of the petitioner No,1. Upon the demise of the said deceased it is averred that Mst.Sahibzadi petitioner No,2 became the legal guardian of the person and property of the petitioner No,1.
3. During the lifetime of his father, the petitioner No,1 had kidney pain which became very serious after his fathers demise and huge amount was required for the treatment of petitioner No,1. She accordingly made an application bearing G.A.No,3 of 1972 under Section 7 of Guardian and Wards Act to the District Judge, Hyderabad for appointment of the guardian of the person and property of the minor which application was granted vide Order dated 16-2-1972. Thereafter, on 22-6-1974 the petitioner No,2 sold away 194-34 acres of land to the purchasers namely Mst. Ghulam Zainab and Mst.Jiando by a registered sale-deed dated 22-6-1974. The relevant record of rights was also mutated in the name of purchasers and they were put in physical possession of the land. Upon promulgation of Land Reforms Act (II) of 1977), the petitioner No,2 on behalf of petitioner No,1 filed form of declaration of holding of agricultural land before respondent No,4 namely Deputy Land Commissioner disclosing therein the said sale made by her on behalf of the petitioner No,1 in the year 1974. The respondent No,4 after careful examination of the record passed order dated 19-2- 1978 accepting the alienation made in favour of Mst.Ghulam Zainab and Mst. Jiando and allowed the petitioner to retain the holding of 99-10 acres which was below permissible limits. Subsequently the Officer Incharge Sindh Inspection Team of Sindh Federal Land Commissioner while scrutinizing the declaration was pleased to hold that alienation suffers from legal defect as the declarant namely petitioner No,1 was minor and petitioner No,2 his mother was not permitted by the competent Civil Court to alienate the land by said registered sale-deed dated 22-6-1974. Upon this finding the matter was then referred by the respondent No,2 to the respondent No,3 the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad go as to examine the objections under rule (ii) of Sindh Land Reforms Rules, 1977. The said respondent No,3 vide this order dated 24-2-1979 declared the said alienation as illegal and void with directions to the respondent No,4 to redetermine holding of the petitioner No,1 in the light of objections/memo of respondent No,1. Consequently by order dated 17-3-1980 respondent required the petitioners to surrender the excess area of 88-39 acres equivalent to 3470 produce index units. The petitioners thereupon challenged the order passed by respondent No,4 before the Land Commissioner namely respondent No,3 who vide his order dated 30-3-1983 rejected the appeal of the petitioner.
4. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners were not liable to file any declaration form of holding under the Land Reforms Act (ii) of 1977, which erroneously they did but it is submitted that orders passed on filing of declaration form are illegal, void, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. It is contended that the alienation made by or on behalf of petitioner No,1 was much prior to the promulgation of Act (ii) of 1977 and no officer either of Federal Land Commission or Sindh Land Commission is legally competent to question any transaction/alienation prior to the date of promulgation of the said Act 4-1-1977. The transaction taking place by a registered sale-deed under no circumstances can be questioned by any of the said functionaries as none of them is invested with judicial powers to enquire as to the validity of the said transaction/alienation.
4-A. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Syed Ghulam Nabi Shah and others v. Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land Commission and four others 1982 CLC 1472. In this case Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 were examined with reference to para 7(1)(b) and it was held that the Federal Land Commission is entitled to go into the question as to whether in fact there was a gift in favour of a legal heir but it cannot inquire into the bona fides of gift. Reference then was made to Ghulam Hussain and another v. O.S.D., Federal Land Commission and two others, 1984 CLC 2334 in which again para. 7 of Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 MLR No,115 was examined. In this case the Federal Land Commission had declared sales of immovable property by father in favour of the petitioner as incompetent on the basis that father was defecto guardian of minor son. It was held by the Court that father was a legal guardian and since there was no material before the Court on the basis of which it could be determined whether the sales fall within one of the exceptions to the principle that a muslim father has no power to sell immovable property of his minor child, the case was remanded to the Federal Land Commission for decision according to law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that as per para. 7 of Land Reforms Regulation, (1972) MLR 115 no inquiry can be made as to the bona fides of the transferee, similarly, under rule 11(2) of Sindh Land Reforms Rules, 1977 framed under the Land Reforms Act, 1977, the functionaries are not competent to ascertain the bona fides of the transfer of land. It will be fruitful to reproduce the said rule 11 of the Law Reforms Rules, 1977 as under:--
11. Revision.--(1) For the purposes of satisfying himself about the correctness, legality or propriety of any order or proceeding under the Act passed by or pending with a Land Commissioner or Deputy Land Commissioner, the Chief Land Commissioner may, at any time of his own motion or on an application made to him in that behalf, within 20 days of the passing of the order, call for the record of such case proceeding, and may pass such order in relation thereto as he thinks fit.
(2) For the purpose of satisfying himself about the correctness, legality or propriety of any order or proceeding under the Act, passed, by or pending with a Deputy Land Commissioner, Assistant Land Commissioner or Sub-Assistant Land Commissioner, Land Commissioner specially empowered in this behalf by the Chief Land Commissioner, may of his own motion or on an application made to him in that behalf, within 20 days of the passing of the order, call for the record of such case or proceeding, and may pass such order in relation thereto as he thinks fit.
(3) The Chief Land Commissioner or a Land Commissioner, as the case may be, shall not pass any order under this rule revising or modifying an order affecting any person without affording such person an opportunity of being beard."
It will be seen that under rule 11(2) of Sindh Land Reforms Rules, 1977 inter alia suo motu power is given to the functionaries to call for the record and - to scrutinize the correctness, legality or propriety of an order or proceeding. It may be stated here that the case of the petitioners is that petitioner No,2 had obtained an order dated 16-2-1972 whereby she was appointed as guardian of the person and property of her son namely petitioner No,1, who at that time was a minor.
Subsequently, by a registered deed dated 22-6-1974 the petitioner No,2 conveyed 194-34 acres of land on behalf of her said son to two purchasers. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to place before us any order from the competent Court empowering her to sell these lands to others. Reference here may be made to section 29 of Guardians and Wards Act whereunder even a Guardian of the property appointed by the Court is required to obtain permission of the Court for sale of immovable property belonging to a minor.
6. Apart from this, learned counsel for the respondent brought to our notice the impugned order dated 30-3-1983 which clearly states that the petitioner did not press the appeal before the learned Land Commissioner and therefore the same was dismissed. It was also brought to our notice that the petition was filed on 11-3-1987 four years after the impugned order and therefore it suffers from lathes. The petitioners' counsel has not been able to meet these objections raised by the counsel for the respondent. Hence we do not find any substance in the petition, which is hereby dismissed with costs.