1. ' AJMAL MIAN, CJ.---This petition is directed against Rubkari dated 22-5-1980 and order dated 10-3- 1979 made/passed by respondents 2 and 1 respectively. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the present petitioners filed an application before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad, alleging therein that Survey Nos, 379/2 and 382/2, situated in Deh Bhit Shah were wrongly treated as evacuee property and were illegally allotted to one Aziz, who is now represented by respondents 4 and 5. The above application was disposed of by the Additional Deputy Commissioner by his aforesaid impugned order dated 10-3-1979, in which it has been held that factually the above two survey numbers were evacuee and were recorded as such. It appears that in pursuance of the above order, Mukhtarkar Hala, respondent 2, prepared impugned Rubkari, whereby, he deleted not only the above two survey numbers but also Survey Nos, 245 and 382/5 without serving any notice to the petitioneRs, The petitioners being aggrieved by the above Rubkari and the aforesaid order, have filed the present petition.
2. ' In support of the above petition, Mr. M. Sharif Khattak, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that Rubkari as well as the impugned order are illegal inasmuch as Rubkari has been prepared without serving any show-cause notice to the petitioners and whereas the impugned order was also unwarranted, as the petitioners were the lessees of the Survey Numbers and, therefore, the same could not have been treated as evacuee.
3. ' It may be observed that the above impugned order was passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad, as far back as on 10-3-1979 against which the petitioners did not file any appeal or other proceedings, therefore, prima facie accepted the above impugned order. In pursuance of the above order the Rubkari was prepared by respondent 2 and, therefore, as far as the two survey members, which were covered by the impugned order, are concerned it cannot be urged by the petitioners that they were not heard, whereas, as regards the other two survey numbers, there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners were heard by a competent authority before the above two other survey numbers were deleted from the names of the petitioneRs, ' We would, therefore, allow the petition to the extent of declaring that the impugned Rubkari in respect of Survey No, 245 measuring 5.18 acres and 382/5 to the extent measuring 2 acres is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. However, there will be no order as to costs.
4. ' As regards the remaining two other Survey Nos,382/2 and 279/2, the impugned order dated 10-3- 1979 will hold the field.