1. ' MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J.---Petitioner Mst. Roshan Ara has invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court against an order dated 6-5-1990 passed by the Additional Commissioner-1, Hyderabad.
2. ' The impugned order was passed on a suo motu reference made by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-1, Hyderabad. The case relates to gift of land by Mst. Roshan Ara in favour of minors Mir Karam All and Mir Noor Ahmed sons of Mir Ali Ahmed Khan. The entries about the gift were made in the record on 6-10-1976 and 1-6-1976. In pursuance of land reforms, the case about holding of Mst. Roshan Ara was taken up for scrutiny by an Officer Incharge of Federal Land Commission. Under directions of Federal Land Commission, the A.D.C.-1, Hyderabad verified the original Revenue Record personally. On verifying the record the A.D.C.-1 found that upper half of page 34 of Dakhil Kharij Register No, 10387 of Deh Narki, Taluka Tando Muhammad Khan, was replaced by lower half part of the same page, which was meant to be kept in taluka office as duplicate copy. The A.D.C.-1 came to the conclusion that original half had been taken away and replaced by the duplicate one and that the entries about the gift by Mst. Roshan Ara were ante- dated to defeat the provisions of Land Reforms Act, 1977. The A.D.C.1 further noted that upper half of Page No, 34 of Dakhal Kharij Register No,10106 of Deh Abad Taluka Tando Muhammad Khan, had been replaced with the lower half part of the same page and the entries about gift of 209-26 acres of land in favour of Mir Karam Ali and 107-32 acres of land in favour of Mir Noor Ahmed by Roshan Ara were shown to have been made on 1-6-1976. A.D.C.-1, Hyderabad made reference to the Commissioner, Hyderabad for reversing the ante-dated entries under subsection (3) of Section 164 of Land Revenue Act. The Commissioner transferred the matter to the Additional Commissioner-1, Hyderabad Division, for decision in accordance with law.
3. ' After hearing Mr. Shoukat Ali Behlim, learned counsel for Mst. Roshan Ara and perusing the record brought by a Tapadar, the Additional Commissioner-1 under the impugned order dated 6-5-1990 cancelled the antedated entries of alienations with a direction to the A.D.C.-1 to take suitable action against the concerned officials responsible for the forgery, after enquiry. Hence this Constitution petition.
4. ' Mr. Shoukat All Behlim, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that impugned order had been passed by the Additional Commissioner-1 without hearing donees namely Mir Karam Ali and Mir Noor Ahmed. Learned counsel therefore wanted the impugned order to be set aside on the grounds that it was against the natural justice and it violated the principle of audi alterm partem.
5. Learned counsel referred to the proviso below subsection (4) of Section 164 of the Land Revenue Act which shows that no order shall be passed reversing or modifying any proceedings or order of a subordinate Revenue Officer affecting any person without giving such person an opportunity of being heard. In reply to Court question, as to, why he had not exhausted the remedies under the Land Revenue Act, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order was neither appealable nor revision can be preferred against the impugned order. In support learned counsel cited the cases of:
(i) Haji Muhammad Khan and others v. Deputy Land Commissioner and others PLD 1987 Kar.
6. 387.
(ii) Mir Haji All Ahmed Khan Talpur and others v. Government of Sindh and others PLD 1976 Kar.
7. 316.
(iii) State v. Muhammad Ibrahim 1987 CLC 531.
(iv) Safeer Ahmed alias Muhammad Shafiq v. Abdul Rasheed and another 1992 CLC 1896.
(v) Ali Muhammad and others v. Muhammad Bachal and others 1992 M LD 2436.
8. ' Mr. Abdul Latif Memon, learned A.A.-G. Appearing for the official respondents defended the impugned order to be legal and proper. Learned AA.-G. Was of the view that since ante-dated entries were made in the recordof-rights to defeat the provisions contained in Land Reforms Act, 1977 hence such entries required to be cancelled. Learned AA.-G. Also argued that donees Mir Karam Ali and Mir Noor Ahmed were minors and they were in the Hizanat of their mother Mst.
9. Roshan Ara, who was fully heard through her counsel, before passing of the impugned order and hence the petitioner cannot attack the impugned order on the ground that the donees were not heard.
10. ' There is force in the contentions raised by learned AA.-G. Counsel for Mst. Roshan Ara was heard by the Additional Commissioner-1 before passing of the impugned order. The donees were admittedly minors at the time of the gift and there is nothing on record to show that they have attained the age of majority. In the normal course of things, the minor children are supposed to be in the Hizanat of their mother. Consequently the objection that the impugned order was passed without hearing the parties is repelled being, without any substance.
11. ' The impugned order was passed on a reference made by the A.D.C.-1 to the Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner passed the impugned order on such reference. Hence said order viewed from any angle is an "original order", passed by the Additional Commissioner on behalf of the Commissioner and such an order is appealable in view of clause (c) of E Section 161 of Land Revenue Act. Since the petitioner had an alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the Board of Revenue, he could not have filed the Constitution Petition.
12. ' The authorities cited on behalf of the petitioner do not further her case. In the case of Haji Muhammad Khan and others PLD 1987 Kar. 387 a learned D.B. Of this Court held that an order under paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (Martial Law Regulation 115) cancelling gift of land by the. Federal Land Commission cannot be passed unless the donees are given notice and they have been afforded an opportunity of being heard. Ignoring of such statutory requirement, would directly involve the violation of the principle of natural justice, as further held. Cited case is distinguishable from the present case, where minor donees of the gifts in question, were heard through their mother who was represented by an advocate, before cancellation of entries found forged and ante-dated. In the case of Mir Haji Ali Ahmad Khan Talpur and others (PLD 1976 Kar. 316) a gift of landed property by petitioner Mir All Ahmad on 10-12-1966 in favour of his sons and daughters was cancelled on 14-1-1974 for the reason that there was no statement of any of the donees regarding acceptance of the gift, although they had been in possession of the respective portions of the land gifted to them, and the record-of-rights was also mutated in terms of the statement made by petitioner Mir All Ahmad on 10-12-1966. It was held that the donees had indeed impliedly accepted the gifted property and the transfer of the property took place through a valid gift under the Muhammadan Law which got reflected itself by the mutation entries recorded in favour of children of the donor. This case is also distinguishable. The case of State v. Muhammad Ibrahim (1987 CLC 531) was decided by the Federal Land Commission which took view that Federal Government's powers under Section 27 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977, to take up any case and pass such order as deemed necessary, are unambiguous, unequivocal and not subject to any limitation.
13. Another view taken in the said case was that a declarant under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, who claimed to have alienated on 15-1-1971, 147-11 acres of land to his wife in lieu of payment of dower, can protect rights of his wife, by choosing to surrender under the Land Reform Regulation land other than that which he had transferred to his wife as dower. Said case does not cover the point at issue.
14. ' In the instant case fraud and manipulation of record to the advantage of sons of Mst. Roshan Ara was detected by the A.D.C.-1, Hyderabad, The cancellation of entries of gift was not on account of non-existence of acceptance of gift. Hence case of Mir Haji Ali Ahmad Talpur and others PLD 1976 Kar. 316 does not apply to this case. In the case of Muhammad Ibrahim 1987 CLC 531 decided by Federal Land Commission there was no question of any fraud or ante-dating of the mutation entries and hence it is not applicable to this case. In the case of Safeer Ahmed 1992 CLC 1896 there was a mere declaration of gift put to writing on 8-4-1985 affirming an earlier oral gift of 5-4-1985 and the consequential delivery of possession. Such a document did not require any registration and even possessory title of the property may be transferred on the basis of such document, as per the view expressed in said case. In the present case the gifts by the petitioner have not been challenged on the ground of being unregistered. In the case of Ali Muhammad and others 1992 M LD 2436 view taken was that exercise of suo motu revisional powers by the Commissioner in cancelling sanction of land beyond five years of order of sanction, and beyond five years of continuous possession, was unwarranted by law and time-barred, in view of section 164 of Land Revenue Act. In the present case no such objection has been raised. In the said case it was also held that the Commissioner's order in suo motu jurisdiction being original order, an appeal filed against the same was competent and could not have been treated as Second Revision. This shows that the impugned order in the present case was appealable and resort to Constitutional remedy could have been avoided, C when alternate remedy of filing an appeal under Section 161 of the Land Revenue Act was available.
15. ' For the foregoing reasons this Constitution Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.