' This is a suo moto revision in exercise of the powers conferred by para. 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 and initiated in consequence of a note recorded by the Inspection Team of the Federal Land Commission, wherein the following objection has been moved "At the time of hearing before the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, the counsel of the declarant has argued that the area acquired in the name of sons of the declarant was purchased in their name by the brother of the declarant, who had brought up them after the death of their mother and 2nd marriage of their father. The Deputy Land Commissoner, Hyderabad had been pleased to accept the above plea of the counsel of the declarant and excluded that area from the holding of the declarant. This decision of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad is virtually discretionary one and not warranted under the provisions of M. L. R.-115 as amended."
2. I have examined the record and carefully perused the Deputy Land Commissioner's Order No, LR /T/52 i/1133 dated 4-7-72 which patently speaks of a complete lack of understanding about the express provisions of law. The learned Deputy Land Commissioner himself accepts at page. 3 "that where the heirs of a Government servant have acquired land through their own resources, such land would not attract the application of para. 10 of the M L R-115," and goes on to, "conclude that after the death of the wife of the declarant, case of these two sons of the declarant namely Mushtaque Ahmed and Nisar Ahmed was taken by their uncle Mir Hunan . . Obviously therefore the land in their names has been purchased by their uncle from his resources , . . ." Most astonishingly the Learned Deputy Land Commissioner finds that the land purchased by "their uncle from his resources" is also therefore from the children's "own resources."
3. I am constrained to say that the learned Deputy Land Commissioner's finding is neither sound in reason nor correct in law. The Notification No, S L C/3668/72/2276 dated 17-7-72 is express clear, congruous and emphatic. Para. 4 of the Notification lays stress on only and exclusively those cases, "where heirs of a Government servant have acquired any lend through their own resources."
Therefore, any land acquired through the resources of the uncle is completely outside the scope and meaning of this proviso.
4. The counsel has admitted in the open Court that the land was not acquired through the children's "own resources" and it is of no consequence, whether the uncle or any one else bought it for them. The declarant has inherited only 5-29 acres from his ancestors and his children have bad no property/resources to enable them to acquire land, The declarant is a petty functionary of Government i.e, a Supervising Tapedar who started his career over 20 years ago as a Tapedar at a salary of Rs, 35 per month and his present salary does not exceed Rs, 350. In the absence of any significant inherited property, it is not too di cult to determine as to how he came to acquire so much land. Furthermore, the declarant testified that he has been married twice and he has children from both the wives. It is anybody's guess as to how he is able to afford such luxuries. Be as it may, he has failed to prove that his children had "their own resources" from which to buy the land.
Therefore the objection lodged by the Federal Land Commission is upheld.
5. I adjudge that the aforesaid order of the Deputy Land Commissioner is perverse because the land acquired by the uncle from "his resources" is outside the scope and meaning of the proviso to para.
10. An as admeasuring 39-34 acres of land held in excess of the limit prescribed in para. 10, is therefore to be resumed from the Khata of the declarant.
Land ordered to be resumed.