' 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.
2. According to the inspection note: "The declarant owned/possessed an area of 354-20 acres equal to 12787 PIUs in Taluka Tando Bago of Hyderabad and Jamesabad of Iharparkar District between 1-3-1967 and 20-12-1971. He had made one alienation to the extent of 22-08 acres equal to 821 PIUs in deh Bhiryoon of Taluka Tando Bago by way of Regd. Sale Deed during the crucial period. The declarant is a minor and the above alienation had been made by his father on behalf of the declarant.
' The Land Commissioner, Sind declared the above alienation as void on the ground that the father of the declarant was not competent to sale the land of his minor son. Being aggrieved by the order of the Land Commissioner, Sind, the declarant's father preferred appeal before the Chief Land Commissioner, Sind who upheld the same and declared the alienation as not to be void, on the ground that under Muhammadan Law the father is natural guardian of his minor sons, and that he has right to sell property for the benefit of his minor son.
' From the record, it does not appear whether the father of the declarant had acquired guardianship certificate from a competent Court and the Court's permission to sell such land on behalf of minor son. Hence the ground of the Chief Land Commissioner, Sind for declaring the alienations as not to be void is not based on the law."
3. I have heard the learned counsel who was given adequate and repeated opportunity to show that the alienation in question was in fact a genuine and bona fide transaction, but no convincing arguments were forthcoming. A careful examination of the revenue record reveals that on 6-6- 1969 the declarant who is minor received 22. 08 acres of land in deh Bhiryoon, Taluka Tando Bago as a gift from his father Nabi Bux. Entry 77 of the V. F. VII for deh Bhiryoon refers.
4. After a lapse of only four months, the same land was sold by the donor I. e. Declarant's father Nabi Bux to the declarant's cousin Ali Buz purportedly for and on behalf of the minor son i. e. The declarant without necessary permission certificate of the civil Court. The learned Land Commissioner, Sind vide his order dated 4-8-1972 declared the alienation void ab lnitio whereupon the declarant preferred an appeal before the learned Chief Land Commissioner, Sind who reversed the decision of the learned Land Commissioner, Sind without citation of law or any judicial authorities. The very fact that the declarant's father first gifted the land and very soon thereafter sold it, raises a prima facie doubt as to the genuineness of the transaction, It is obvious that the so- called gift has been used as a contrivance of frustrating the provisions of the Land Reforms Regulations. It is precisely for these reasons, that the MLR-115 emphasises a retrospective probe into the alienations dating back to 1-3.1967, and it is obviously for the detection of the shady transactions that we are to determine whether the transactions are bona fide or otherwise. From the facts elicited above, the said alienation can only be diagnosed as a sham paper transaction.
5. While relying upon Mohammedan Law, the learned counsel urged that the father is a natural guardian of the minor son and as such he can alienate immovable property without prior permission of the Court. According to section 263 of Muhammadan Law by Mulla (Twelfth Edition):- "A legal guardian of the property of a minor has no power to sell the immovable property of the minor except in the following cases, namely,
(1) where he can obtain double its value ;
(2) where the minor has no other property and the sale is necessary for his maintenance ;
(3) where there are debts of the deceased, and no other means of paying them ; (4) where there are legacies to be paid, and no other means of paying them ; (5) where the expenses exceed the income of the property (6) where the property is falling into decoy, and (7) when the property has been usurped and the guardian has reason to fear that there is no chance of fair restitution."
' None of these situations is applicable to the declarant. Moreover the learned counsel has failed to convince the Court that the alienation of immovable property by the declarant's fattier was in fact, for the welfare of the minor.
6. The alienees refused to accept service and the notice served on them was deliberately, knowingly and wilfully returned by them. However in view of the publication of notice in the Daily Ibrat, all the formalities of law and of natural justice have been met.
' The objection lodged by the Inspection Team is upheld and the alienation of 22-08 acres in deh Bhiryoon is declared void ab initio.
8. In the light of the above findings, the Deputy Land Commissioner is directed to revise his order whereby an area out of 787 Ms will be resumable from the Khata of the declarant. Objection upheld.