' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---The above appeal by leave of this Court, is directed against the judgment dated 11-8-1993 of the Sindh High Court allowing Constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution by respondents Nos.1 and 2 (Muhammad Shah and Syed Abdul Qadir Shah). Leave was granted by order dated 1-12-1993, which reads as under: "In about 1963-64 agricultural land described in the memorandum of petition was granted to respondents 1 and 2, which was cancelled in 1982 for non-payment of installments with direction for disposal in open Katchery. Old grantees (respondents 1 and 2) made application to the Commissioner for re-grant of the cancelled land, which was dismissed but second application for the same purpose was allowed and in the result cancelled land was re-granted. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners being haris and in cultivating possession filed Revision Application against re-grant, which was allowed by Board of Revenue and in the result order of cancellation and fresh disposal in open Katchery was restored. Constitutional petition filed by old grantees is allowed by the High Court, hence this petition.
' Leave is granted to examine whether letter dated 10-6-1975 by Member, Board of Revenue delegating powers of re-grant has proper legal cover of validity and secondly after rejecting request for re-grant, whether Commissioner has power of review to accept it. Meanwhile it is directed that status quo be maintained."
2. We have heard at length the arguments of Mr. K.B. Bhutto, learned counsel for the appellants, Soomar and 7 others, and with his assistance referred to the relevant record. Private respondents Muhammad Shah and Syed Abdul Qadir Shah have not appeared despite being served. They are ex parte. Respondent No,5, Revenue Officer, Kotri Range, Hyderabad, is represented by Ghulam Sarwar, Barrage Mukhtiarkar, Badin. He is present with the record.
3, Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, were each granted an area of 32 acres of agricultural land in District Badin in the year 1963-64 by the Revenue. Officer, Kotri Barrage. However, on failure to pay instalments of the price of the said lands, grant in their favour was cancelled in 1982 by the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage. Respondents filed an application/appeal before the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division but by order dated 15-2-1988, such application/appeal was rejected.
Respondents then filed another application before the Commissioner and by order dated 16-3- 1988 Commissioner allowed re-grant of cancelled lands to several parties including the respondents. It may be observed here that when the Commissioner had earlier rejected the application of the respondents by order dated 15-2-1988, he had further directed as follows:- "The land in question should be included in the Schedule and disposed of according to the existing land grant policy under intimation to this office."
4. Being aggrieved by the second order dated 16-3-1988, the appellants filed a Revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Sindh which Revision Petition was allowed by order dated 11-3-1989. In the. Revision Petition before the Board of Revenue, it was argued on behalf of the appellants that they were Haris of the disputed land and the second order of the Commissioner was illegal as he could not pass such order in favour of the respondents when he had earlier rejected their request on the same issue. The Commissioner while allowing the Revision Petition filed by the appellants held as follows: "I am also of the view that the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division was not competent to review his order within one month on the same issue specially when the grant had been resumed in the year 1982 and the grantees did not pay a single installment. I therefore order that the entire lands should be disposed of through open Katchery."
5. The order dated 11-3-1989 of the Board of Revenue was challenged by the respondents in a Constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court which petition, as observed, has been allowed by the High Court. The High Court allowed the Constitutional petition for the following reasons:-- "It is evident from the copies filed (not objected to by the opposite side) in this petition that the Commissioner had passed the orders on administrative side on a miscellaneous application as these two applications were not even registered as appeals in the Land Revenue Act. By Notification No,5983/74/7923-KB-1 dated 10th June, 1975 issued by the Land Utilization Department of the Board of Revenue, a Commissioner can restore and grant land cancelled within 15 years. The land in the instant case was cancelled in the year 1982 and was restored in 1988, within competency of the powers of the Commissioner. The Senior Member, Board of . Revenue, Sindh has committed an error by taking it as an order passed in appeal. Otherwise, it is true that powers of review by a Commissioner have been taken away by Sindh Ordinance No,XI of 1980 whereby section 163 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967 has been omitted.
' For the foregoing reasons we are of the view that the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Sindh, had exceeded his jurisdiction by passing the order impugned in this petition. We accordingly declare the order impugned in this petition to have been passed without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect and allowed the petition with no order as to cost."
' It follows from the impugned judgment that the High Court was conscious that review powers previously vested in the Commissioner by section 163 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967 had been taken away by Sindh Ordinance No,XI of 1980 whereby section 163 had been deleted from the Land Revenue Act, 1967, but the High Court came to the conclusion that the Commissioner had passed orders on the administrative side; the two applications filed by the respondents before the Commissioner were not appeals but were Miscellaneous Applications and that under Notification dated 10-6-1975 issued by Land Utilization Department a Commissioner could restore and grant lands cancelled within 15 years and, therefore, the Commissioner competently passed the orders on the administrative side restoring the lands in favour of the respondents in 1988, which had been earlier cancelled in 1982.
6. It has been submitted by Mr. K.B. Bhutto, learned counsel for the appellant, that, being Haris of the lands in question, the appellants were aggrieved parties and had acquired the right to take part in the open Katchery for seeking grant of the cancelled land but such right was denied to them by the Commissioner by passing an illegal order dated 16-3-1988 granting the lands to the respondents thereby reviewing/ setting aside this earlier order dated 15-2-1988 whereby the Commissioner had rejected the request of the respondents for re-grant of the lands and had directed disposal of the lands in open Katchery. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellants that Notification dated 10-6-1975 on which reliance has been placed by the High Court was not a valid Notification inasmuch as it contravened the notified statement of conditions issued on 20-11-1972 by Government of Sindh under section 10(2) of the Colonization of the Government Lands (Punjab)
Act, 1912. Learned counsel specially drew our attention to Conditions Nos.6 and 15 of the said Statement of Conditions. Condition No,6(4) requires that grant to Haris shall be made in open Katchery whereas Condition No, 15 inter alia provides that the earlier grantees shall have no right whatsoever for grant of lands after four years of resumption of lands. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the land had been cancelled in 1982 and, after four years of such cancellation, respondents lost their rights for regrant of ,such lands and if at all they wanted to get such lands again, this could be done only in open Katchery.
7. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record, we are of the view that the High Court did not consider several questions of law which arise in this case and, without decision of such questions, the Constitutional Petition by the respondents could not be properly disposed of.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment dated 11-8-1993 of Sindh High Court allowing Constitutional Petition No, D-100 of 1989 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh decision after considering the following questions of law and other questions that might be raised by the parties during the hearing:
(a) Whether the appellants were aggrieved parties and could competently file Revision Petition before the Board of Revenue. While considering this question, High Court may consider the fact that the lands in question had been originally granted to the respondents in 1963-64 which grant had not been challenged by the appellants and in these circumstances whether on cancellation of the grant in favour of the respondents in 1982, appellants acquire any right or interest in the lands to maintain a revision petition before the Board of Revenue and, in any case, whether the appellants acquired any right or interest in the lands on orders being passed by the Commissioner for disposal of the cancelled lands in open Katchery?
(b) Whether the Statement of Conditions issued on 20-11-1972-by the Sindh Government under section 10(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 could be modified by the Land Utilization Department through Notification dated 10-6-1975 by modifying the condition of 4 years to 15 years for re-grant of land to an earlier grantee?
(c) After having passed an order refusing the request of the respondents for re-grant of the cancelled land and ordering disposal of such lands in open Katchery, the Commissioner could pass an order on the administrative side re-granting the lands to the respondents without notice to the appellants.
' This is an old matter. The High Court may give priority to this case and dispose of the Constitutional petition at an early date, ' There shall be no order as to costs.