' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---Petitioner, Government of Sindh, has filed this petition for leave against the judgment, dated 24-11-1994 passed by the Sindh High Court allowing the Constitutional Petition filed by respondents Nos.1 to 6, Zafarul Islam and others. By the impugned judgment of the High Court, the orders passed by respondent No,7 Deputy Commissioner-I, Hyderabad, dated 8th and 12th March, 1989, have been declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The dispute relates to the plot of one acre which was part of urban evacuee property in Hyderabad and was allotted to late Mst. Sharifan widow of Liaqat Ali Khan, predecessor-in-interest of private respondents Nos.1 to 5, in 1971 against her URV, respondents Nos.1 to 5 were put in actual possession of the said plot in October, 1988. However, by the ex parte order, dated 8th and 12th March, 1989, passed by the Additional Commissioner-I, Hyderabad, purportedly under section 164 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967, the allotment made in favour of late Mst. Sharifan widow of Liaqat Ali Khan in respect of one acre/was cancelled. It was noted in the impugned orders that mutations have been effected in the Record-ofRights in favour of private respondents Nos.1 to 5 in 1971, but after verification of Rehabilitation Record, it transpired that allotment was not supported by certain entries; that it was only paper allotment in favour of deceased Mst. Sharifan and the payment of the Rehabilitation fee had also not been made. As observed, the said orders were challenged in the Constitutional petition before the High Court which petition has been allowed.
3. In the impugned judgment dated 24-11-1994, the High Court has noted the following questions which required consideration:--
(1) The respondent No,1 who passed the impugned orders on 80-3-1989 and pass such orders in the purported exercise of his jurisdiction under section 164 (2) of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967.
(2) Whether on repeal of the evacuee property and Displaced Persons Law Act (XIV of 1975) which came into force at once and was deemed to have taken effect on the first day of July, 1974 the respondent No,1 had the jurisdiction to re-open a past and closed chapter? And
(3) Whether the impugned orders could have been passed by the respondent No,1 without hearing the persons likely to be aggrieved by such orders, and whether in the circumstances it would be appropriate to remand the case to respondent No,1 for re-hearing?
' Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, Government of Sindh, conceded that the Additional Commissioner who passed the impugned orders has no jurisdiction to pass such order under section 164(2) of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967, as he had not taken prior permission of the Commissioner and that the impugned orders also suffered from violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the allotment has been cancelled without notice to respondents Nos.1 to 6. However, he attempted to argue Question No,2 that it was decided correctly by the High Court. He, however, conceded that, in view of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal Act) (XIV of 1975), all the rehabilitation, settlement and evacuee laws stood repealed with effect from 1-7-1974 and action could only be taken in pending proceedings by the Notified Officers as provided in section 2(2) of the Act 1975, but according to learned counsel, under the Land Revenue Act, Record-of-Rights can be corrected and that was purported to have been done and, in the circumstances, the case may be remanded to the Additional Commissioner so that he may take fresh action after taking approval from the Commissioner and after notice to respondents Nos.1 to 6.
We find no merit in the connection inasmuch as the entries in the Record-of-Rights have been made on the basis of allotment made under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Laws and which orders are past and closed transactions and by purportedly exercising jurisdiction under the Land A Revenue Act that cannot be done which is prohibited by Act XIV of 1975.
4. We find no merit in this petition which is dismissed. Leave is refused. If the petitioner has any other remedy against the private respondents; they may resort to such remedy which will be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the applicable law.
5. Mr. Ghiasuddin Mirza, learned Advocate-on-Record appears for the interveners, namely, Mst.
Salma Khanum and Mst. Shabana Khanum. According to them, they are the daughters of the late Najmul Islam and that they have interest/right in the property in dispute. Admittedly, the interveners were not parties to these proceedings. If they have any independent right or interest in the property in dispute they can resort to such remedy as may be available to them under the law.
' Intervener's application stands disposed of accordingly.