MUHAMMAD QASIM LASHARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL), B.O.R.--- This appeal u/S. 161 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act, 1967) against the order dated 15.2.2002 of the Executive District Officer (Revenue) Ghotki was presented before the learned Member (Land Utilization) Board of Revenue Sindh on 8.3.2003.
2., The period for filing an appeal before the Board of Revenue against the order of the Executive District Officer (Revenue) prescribed in section 162(c) of the Act, 1967 is ninety days. The appeal was thus time-barred by 9 months and 20 days but no formal application for the condonation of delay was filed u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. It is laid down in Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908 that every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the period of Limitation prescribed therefor, shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set-up as a defence. In Section 3 ibid, word 'shall' has been used and when this word appears in a statute, is used as a term of art to impose a duty to do what is prescribed, not a discretion to do it or not according to whether it is reasonably practicable to do it or to do something like it f. instead (PLD 1991 Lah. 400). Obviously the word 'shall' used in Section 3 ibid, signifies that if an appeal or application for revision is barred by time, it has to be dismissed unless the period is extended/delay is condoned u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. In the instant case, no formal application u/S. 5 of the . Limitation Act, 1908 duly supported by an affidavit, drawn-up and verified in the manner provided by the Civil Procedure Code as envisaged in Rule 4 of the Sindh Land Revenue Rules, 1968, was filed by the appellant. It is well-established principle of law that neither the delay can be condoned impliedly nor a Court can grant unsought for relief (PLJ 1-985 Lah. 124, PLD 1961 Kar. 656, PLD 1981 AJ&K 126, 1986 SCMR 1624, etc. Relied upon). It is expressly provided in Section 167 of the Act, 1967, as amended vide Section 15 of the Sindh Ordinance No. XI of 1980 that in the computation of the period for, or condonation in filing of an appeal or an application for revision of an order under this Act, the limitation therefor shall be governed by the provision of the Limitation Act, 1908. Under, these circumstances when the appeal was barred by time and no condonation of delay in a proper and legal way was sought, the present appeal was straightaway to be dismissed in limine as envisaged in Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908 undoubtedly, the Court has no jurisdiction to extent time causelessly or capriciously.
3. The learned Member (L.U.), however, ordered for the issuance of pre-admission, notices.
Subsequently, the case was received by this Court by way of transfer owing to a change in distribution of business amongst the Members vide Nctification No. 1/914/90-Admn-l/1052, dated 10.5.2003 of the Secretary to Government of Sindh, Revenue Departthent. Since the matter mainly related to regrant this case was not to be sent to this Court for the obvious reason that the subject of regrant as per distribution of business exclusively relates to the Land Utilization Department and none else is competent to allow or to disallow regrant.
4. Notices were issued to the parties and the case was heard by me at the length.
5. Resume of the necessary facts, for resolving the present controversy, as divulged from the record are that a lot No. 6 comprising of following survey numbers of deh Madan Wala, Taluka Ubauro, District Ghotki (hereinafter to be referred as the disputed land) was formed and allotted to Ghulam Yaseen Niazi s/o Muzafar Khan from Kharif 1966/67 vide A-form No. 101 R/R under the scheme for the grant, by way of sale of state Agriculture land in the areas of Ghulam Muhammad Barrage, Guddu Barrage and Taunsa Barrage to retiring and Retired Civil Government Servants with distinguished record of honest and efficient service, issued and notified by the Government of West Pakistan, Revenue and Rehabilitation Department vide its Notification No. 596-63/659-S(G)V, dated 23.2.1963 (hereinafter to be referred as the scheme):- S.No. Survey No. Area (in acres)
1 789 3-39 2 790 3-39 3 791 3-39 4 792 3-39 5 793 3-39 6 794 3-39 7 795 3-39 8 796 3-39 9 797 3-39 10 798 3-39 11 799 18-00 12 800 2-25 13 801 3-39 14 802 3-39 15 803 5-2 16 804 3-39 17 805 3-39 18 806 3-39 19 807 3-39 20 820 7-10 Total Area (in Acres) 91-21
6. As per entries in the A-Form No. 101, the price of the land was to be paid in 10 instalments, 1st instalment commencing from 10.5.1971. The grantee before making the full payment of price of the land and executing sale agreement and executing deed of conveyance as envisaged in paras. 9 and 10 of the scheme and before acquiring proprietary rights, made an agreement to sale for the sale of disputed land with Chaudhary Muhammad Sharif and Chaudhary Ghulam Rasool, on 13.6.1969. The grantee by, doing so, violated condition of the sale contained in para. 12 of the scherrie and thereby made the grant liable to resumption. Para. '1'2 of the scheme is re: produced hereunder:-- "12. Alienation, The grantee and in the event of his death, his heir, shall not until the price of the land is fully paid sell, mortgage or otherwise alienate the land.
7. The grantee paid the initial deposit and five instalments (out of 10 instalments) due from 10.5.1971 to 10.5.1975. The sixth instalment fell due on 10:7.1977 but the grantee failed to pay the same and the grant was finally cancelled from Rabi 1977-78. Lateron, the disputed land was put in schedule for fresh disposal to Local Harts.
8. In the year 1969, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 was made applicable to the erstwhile Province of West Pakistan vide Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) (West Pakistan Amendment) Ordinance, 196,9 (No. XXXVI of 969). In the year 1970, on the dismemberment of one unit vide Province of West Pakistan (Dissolution) Order, 1970 (President's Order No. 1 of 1970), Board of Revenue Sindh was established w.e.f. 1.7.1970 vide Sindh Ordinance No. 1 of 1970 and lateron the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 was extended to the Province of Sindh vide Sindh Adaptation of Laws Order, 1975.
9. For the grant of state land for agriculture purpose in Kotri, Guddu and Sukkur Barrage command arrears, the Government of Sindh in Land Ut?Lization Department (Board of Revenue Sindh) in exercise of powers conferred by Section 10(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 and in supersession of previous notifications issued in this behalf, notified statement of conditions vide Notification No. KB-1/1/30/72/7179/7784, dated 20.11.1972. According to these statement of condition, the agriculture land in command areas of Kotri, Guddu and Sukkur Barrages, was to be granted to Haris, small Khatedars and Mohagdars only. Since the statement of condition vide Notification dated 20.11.1972 superceded all previous notifications issued by the erstwhile West Pakistan Government for the grant of agricultural land in command areas of Kotri, Guddu and Sukkur Barrages, the scheme for the grant of state agricultural land to retiring/retired Government servant, ceased to exist.
10. In the year 1983, one Ghulam Rasool s/o Pir Bux in the capacity of attorney of ex-grantee Ghulam Yaseen Khan Niazi, presented an application to the then Additional Commissioner, Sukkur for the acceptance of arrears of grant of disputed land on behalf of ex-grantee Ghulam Yaseen.
The then Additional Commissioner, Sukkur vide his letter dated 24.11.1983 allowed payment of arrears on the condition that the applicant Ghulam Rasool would produce the power-of-attorney issued in his favour by the ex-grantee Ghulam Yaseen. The applicant Ghulam Rasool failed to produce the copy of power-of-attorney. Resultantly, the then Additional Commissioner, Sukkur on the report of the then Assistant Colonization Officer Ubauro, and on the reference made by the then Colonization Officer Guddu Barrage Sukkur vide his letter dated 13.12.1983, cancelled the Regrant permission vide his order dated 7.1.1984. Being aggrieved, Ghulam Rasool s/o Pir Bux filed Constitutional Petition No. D-6 of 1984 before the Honourable High Court of Sindh Bench at Sukkur. The petitioner Ghulam Rasool did not bring the legal heirs on record as per orders dated 18.11.1987, 14.1.1988, 3.3.1988 and 30.3.1988 of the Honourable High Court. The C.P. No. D-6 of 1984 was thus dismissed vide order dated 26.5.1988 which is reproduced as under:- "Order 26.5.1988 Mr. Farkhand A.I, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, A.A.G. For the respondents.
Mr. Farkhand A.I Advocate. States that he has received no instruction and he has not been able to furnish the list of L.Rs. There is no other alternate but to dismiss this petition. Petition is dismissed. Al!
The applications are also dismissed in view of dismissal of petition".
11. In the year 1992, the disputed land being available for disposal, was granted to the following local Haris (hereinafter to be referred as the local grantees) in relaxation of Land Grant Policy:- Sr. No. Name of local granteeS.No Area From No. 1 Jalal Dalel 789 3-39 13478-H 2 Reis Haji Sahib Khan790 3-39 13479-H 3 Gaji Yar Muhammad791 3-39 4 Ali Akbar Yar Muhaamad793 7963-39 3-3913476-H 5 Jout Ali Murad 795 3-39 13473-H 6 Ali Nawaz Yar MUhammad797 7943-39 3-3913475-H 7 Haji Yar MuhammadF-799 16-00 13477-H 8 Gulam Kadir F-799 3-00 13450-H 9 Muhammad HAshim Pahilwan800 8012-25 3-3913189-H 10 Sharif Atta Muhammad802 3-39 13472-H 11 Mataro Roshan803 5-02 13196-H 12 Shah Nawaz Mataro804 3-39 13195-H 13 Ghulam Gulab 805 3-39 13198-H 14 Ghulam Rasool Mehrab806 3-39 13197 15 Ali MUammad Mataro807,798 3-39 3-3913199-H 16 Ali Gohar Mataro820 7-10 13194-H
12. Ifis stated that the above grantees paid all the instalments and got Tear off (T.O.) Form issued and disputed land mutated in the Record-of-Rights, in their names. However, in the year 1994, all such illegal harap grants made on political favourtism and in relaxation of statement of conditions for grant of state and to Haris (Peasants) shall Khatedars and Mohagdars in Kotri, Guddu and Sukkur Barrage command areas notified vide Notification No. SB-III/1- 279/P/1704/89, dated 4.12.1989 (hereinafter to be referred as the Land Grant Policy, 1989) were cancelled by the Government of Sindh in Land utilization vide letter No. PS/MBR (LW/782, dated 29.5.1999 which included 11264 grantees of District Ghotki. The Land Utilization Department further ordered the defunct Colonization Officer Sukkur Barrage, Hyderabad, Colonization Officer Guddu Barrage, Sukkur and Revenue Officer Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad that scrutiny of the remaining cases be made minutely and lists of such illegal grants be sent to the Board of Revenue Sindh for further necessary action.
13. Against the above cancellation order, the local grantees filed F.C. Suits No. 419/94 and 422/94 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mirpur Mathelo.
14. While the above F.C. Suits were pending adjudication in the Court of Law, Muhammad Sharif s/o Pir Bux, claiming himself to be the attorney of ex-grantee Ghulam Yaseen Khan Niazi, applied to the Board of Revenue Sindh, Hyderabad in Land Utilization Department for regrant/acceptance of arrears of instalments of the grant of disputed land. The application was sent to the then Colonization Officer Guddu Barrage Sukkur for report through the erstwhile Commissioner, Sukkur.
15. On coming to know that Muhammad Sharif has applied to the Board of Revenue for regrant of the dispute land, the local grantees vide their application dated 17.8.1994, addressed to the erstwhile Commissioner Sukkur as well as the Colonization Officer, Guddu Barrage, Sukkur, opposed the regrant vehemently:
16. The then Colonization Officer Guddu Barrage Sukkur, in. The first instance, vide his letter No. MB/URO/3632/94, dated 30.8.1994 addressed to the Deputy Secretary (L.U.)-I reported that the disputed land was available for regrant and was free from all encumbrances. The said report of the then Colonization Officer Guddu Barrage, Sukkur was forwarded by the erstwhile Commissioner Sukkur to the Deputy Secretary (L.U.)-II, Board of Revenue, Sindh vide his letter No. 0- 3-263-LG/94, dated 1.9.1994. Lateron, the then Colonization Officer, Sukkur Barrage Ubaro vide his letter No. MB/URO/4593/94, dated 17.10.1994 forwarded a copy of report of the then Assistant Colonization Officer, Guddu Barrage Ubaro vide letter No. ACO/U/RR/Regrant/671, Hyderabad wherein it was intimated that two F.C. Suits Nos. 419/94 and 422/94 in respect of grant of disputed land in favour of local grantees, were pending and status quo was to be maintained.
17. The request of Muhammad Sharif s/o Pir Bux for the regrant of disputed land was not tenable for the following obvious reasons:
(i) He was neither the grantee of disputed land nor the legal heir of the ex-grantee Ghulam Yaseen Niazi, as such, he had no right whatsoever or any sort of claim, over the disputed land.
(ii) At the time when applicant Muhammad Sharif applied for regrant, ex-grantee Ghulam Yaseen was said to be not alive. Therefore, the power of-attorney (if any) executed by the ex-grantee in :favour of Muhammad Sharif was void/ineffective.
(iii) The disputed land was not available for regrant.
(iv) As discussed in para. 9 above, the scheme/law under which the disputed land was allotted in favour if ex-grantee, ceased to exist. As such, no provision of law for the regrant was in vogue.
18. The case for regrant was examined in Land Utilization Department and ultimately regrant was allowed vide letter No. LU-ll/5-7-94/G-II/1661, dated 18.10.1994 of the Secretary (Land Utilization) addressed to the then Colonization Officer Guddu Barrage, Sukkur. From the perusal of concerned file of regrant it appears that the regard was allowed under the Land Grant Policy, 1989. The relevant conditions are Nos. 18, 19 and 20 which are re-produced hereunder:- "18-- (1) In the event of default in the payment of the price of land or any instalment thereof, the grant shall be liable to resumption: Provided that if the arrears are paid by 31st December of the year during which the default was made (together with mesne profit eight percent in case of Kotri and Sukkur Barrages and nine percent in case of Guddu barrages) due thereon upto the date of payment, the proceedings for resumption, if taken shall be dropped, and the cultivation raised meanwhile *shall be treated as authorized: Provided further that no mesne profit shall be charged, if the case of failure to make payment of instalments is found by the Board of Revenue to be beyond the control of such grantee.
(2) In case of resumption of the grant all sums or instalments paid to words the price of the land, shall stand forfeited to Government.
(3) If the resumed grant is not granted to any other person, the earlier grantee from whom the grant was resumed may apply for restoration of the grant on payment of entire arrears within a period of four years, from the date of resumption, subject to the following conditions:-
(a) If the arrears are paid with mesne profit at the above rate during the year of resumption but after 31st December, the land shall be restored with effect from the following cultivation season and the cultivation raised in the intervening period i.e. From the date of resumption to the date of restoration, shall be treated as unauthorized.
(b) If the arrears are paid with mesne profit at the above rate with four years, including the period of condonation, if allowed following the years of the resumption, the land shall be restored from the ensuing cultivation season and the cultivation raised in the intervening period shall be treated as unauthorized.
" 19- (1) The Barrage Mukhtiar kar/Assistant Colonization Officer shall submit a list once a year in triplicate, containing particulars of the grant liable for resumption.
(2) On receipt of the above-mentioned list, the Revenue Officer/Colonization Officer shall pass appropriate orders in individual cases under the Act, in the manner laid down therein, and communicate the gist of the orders- in a consolidated statement to the Barrage Mukhtiar kar/Assistant Colonization Officer.
(3) In case the .Revenue Officer Colonization Officer issues a written notice requiring the grantee to rectify the breach within specified time and the Mukhtiar kar/Assistant Colonization Officer concerned shall report the default as early as possible to the Revenue Officer/Colonization Officer for further order.
(4) If the resumption of the grant(s) is ordered under the Act that the Revenue Officer/Colonization Office shall forward the list of resumed grants to the Executive Engineer, concerned in duplicate, and the Taluka Mukhtiar kar.
(5) The Executive Engineer, on receipt of these lists, shall stop water-supply to the affected grants and the Taluka Mukhtiar kar shall take removal act against the defaulters in case they have raised cultivation, after making connection in the record.
"20.-- No resumed land shall be disposed of unless one month's notice is served on the earlier granter from whom the land was resumed informing him of the intention of the. Government: Provided that the earlier grantee shall have no right whatsoever after four years of resumption of land.
19. It is evident that the regrant was allowed by having resort to the provisions of condition No. 18(3) of the Land Grant Policy, 1989, which contemplates that if the land under resumed grant is not granted to any other person, the earlier grantee from whom the grant was resumed may apply for restoration of the grant on payment of entire arrears within a period of four years from the date of resumption. The proviso to condition No. 20 of the Land Grant Policy, 1989, however, puts an embargo that earlier grantee shall have no right whatsoever after four years of resumption of land.
It is urged that the case of ex-grantee Ghulam Yaseen for restoration of grant (regrant) was not covered under the Land Grant Policy, 1989 for the obvious reason that the provisions laid under conditions Nos. 18(3) Land Grant Policy, 1989 are applicable to those grants only which are allotted/granted and subsequently resumed under conditions Nos. 18(1)(2) and 19(4), etc. Of the Land Grant Policy, 1989. Since the grant made to ex-grantee Ghulam Yaseen was not made under the. Land Grant Policy, 1989, its restoration under condition No 18(3) of the Land Grant Policy, 1989, was out of question. If a grant is resumed under condition No 18(1) and (2) of the Land Grant Policy, 1989 even then as envisaged in proviso to condition No. 20 ibid, after the four years of its resumption, earlier grantee has no right whatsoever. The then Commissioner Sukkur vide his letter.
No. 0-3- 263-LG/94,. Dated 1.9.1994 had referred the case of ex-grantee Ghulam Yaseen Khan Niazi to the Land Utilization [Department because the cancellation of grant was above four years and such powers of regrant beyond 8 years of cancellation, as per delegation of powers vide Circular No. SB-III/1-406/277/1999, dated 6.4.1999, vested in the Government/Board of Revenue Sindh. It is next argued that a very careful study of circular/letter dated 6.4.1999 would reveal that:-
(i) as laid down in condition No 18(1) of the Land Grant Policy, 1989 (corresponding condition of condition No. 15 of the statement of conditions notified by the Land Utilization Department vide its Notification No. KB-I/1130/72/7179/7784, dated 20.11.1972) in event of default of payment of the price of land or any instalment thereof, the grant becomes liable to 'resumption' and the land is to be resumed ' in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 read with condition No. 19 of the Land Grant Policy, 1989. It would be seen that the words 'cancellation' or 'cancelled grant' are no where used in the Land Grant Policy, 1989. Therefore, the powers delegated . To the defunct Commissioners and the Board of Revenue for regrant upto 8 years Arid. Beyond 8 years from the year of 'cancellation' respectively are in-consistent with the provisions of Land Grant Policy, 1989 and are thus redundant so far' as the restoration of resumed grant under the Land Grant Policy, 1989, is concerned:
(ii) Circular No. SB-III/1-4-6/277/1999, dated 6.4.1999, whereby the defunct Commissioners and the Board of Revenue/Government are delegated the .Powers of regrant upto 8 years and beyond 8 'years from the date of cancellation respectively, appears to have been issued to' allow regrant under Government Regulation Old No: 12.04-F/46, dated 8.7.1947 which contemplated that no cancelled grant which is 4 years old, is regranted except on its individual merits such -as payment of number of instalments or the grantee's straightened conditions due to calamity of floods etc., or the grantee being away from his land. This resolution, which is incorporated. In Section 10B (Restoration Policy) of Section-B, Part-1 of Standing Order No. 10 of the Standing Orders of the Revenue Department, also stood superceded by the Land Grant Policy notified on 20.11.1972 and subsequently succeeded by the Land Grant Policy, 1989. Resultantly, the case of regrant of the applicant was not covered by Standing Order No. 10 Mid, also.
(iii) As laid down in condition No. 20 (proviso) of the Land Grant Policy, 1989 the earlier grantee shall have no right whatsoever after four years , of resumption of land. Therefore, after the expiry of four years of resumption of grant, none including the Board of Revenue/Government can restore the grant because a grant cannot be restored to a person whose rights over the land are completely extinguished.
(iv) So far as the powers of the Board of Revenue respecting restoration of resumed grant are concerned, no such' powers of restoration of grant are given to the Board of Revenue, Sindh - under Land Grant Policy, 1989, excepting the power of exempting the mesne profit contained in second proviso to condition No. 18(1) of the Land Grant Policy, 1989, which contemplates that no mesne profit shall be charged, if the case of failure to make payment of instalments in found by the Board of Revenue to be beyond the control of such grantee.
20. Notwithstanding the above averments, it would be inadvisable rather incompetent for me to Comment upon the legality and correctness of the regrant order made by learned Member (Land Utilization). Anyway, the Colonization Officer Guddu Barrage refused to accept the instalments from the ex-grantee of the disputed land and made a back reference intimating that the matter was under Civil litigation and status quo was being maintained under the orders of the Honourable Civil Court.
21. The matter for the cancellation/withdrawal of regrant order dated 18.10.1994 was examined br the Land Utilization Department at a considerable length. In the meanwhile, in May, 1995, the learned Member (L.U.) received an application dated 15.5.1995 filed by Ghulam Rasool s/o Pir Bux Jat requesting for the acceptance of the amount of instalments with regard to the regrant permission allowed by the Board of Revenue, Sindh vide No. LU-Il/5-7-94/G-H/461, dated 16.10.1994.
The learned Member (L.U.) decided the. Said miscellaneous application vide his order dated 19.4.2001 whereby he remanded the case to the erstwhile Commissioner, Sukkur to hear the parties and then' pass appropriate orders as per law. The last four paras of the said order are reproduced as under:- "6. The son of Ghulam Rasool attorney namely Iftikhar present before me has argued that they are in possession of the land and they are ready to pay the instalment on the basis of the regrant allowed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 18.10.1994, but the Colonization Officer, Guddu Barrage, Sukkur has not accepted the amount of instalment. He therefore prayed that the Colonization Officer, Guddu Barrage, Sukkur may be directed to accept the arrears of instalments.
7. On the other hand, the learned Advocate on behalf of respondents M/s. Mataro and Gaji (Mr. Ghulam Shabbir) has mainly contended that the lands have been disposed-of in the year 1991-92 and restored by the Government in the ykar 1998. He, therefore, prayed to reject the request of the petitioner Ghulam Rasool.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by the parties at length and observed that the Commissioner, Sukkur may hear the parties and then pass appropriate orders as per law.
9. Accordingly, the case is remanded."
22. The learned Executive District Officer (Revenue) Ghotki (successor-in-office of the erstwhile Commissioner) after hearing the parties passed the order dated 15.2.2002 whereby he cancelled the grant of Ghulam Yaseen and maintained the grants. Of respondents A.I Gohar and others (local grantees).
23. Being, aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 15.2.2000 of the learned Executive District Officer (Revenue) Ghotki; lftikhar Ahmed) sio Ghulam Rasool Jat, said to be the legal heir of deceased .Ghulam Rasool, has filed the present time-barred appeal with the following prayer:-
(a) Order dated 15.2.2001 of Executive District Officer (Revenue) Ghotki may be set-aside, (viz. Grant in favour of local grantees may be cancelled).
(b) Regrant order may be passed in favour of ex-'grantee Ghulam Yaseen.
24. So far as (a) above is concerned, for the grants cancelled by the Government vide order dated 29.5.1994, the Government of Sindh in Land Utilization Department has passed the following orders from time to time:- * (a) Cancellation order dated 29.5.1994 was withdrawn and the erstwhile Commissioners vide 'letter No. SB-III/P/1-421/177/1994, dated 18.2.1997 were asked to pass fresh orders for cancellation or restoration of the grants after hearing the parties individually and issuing show-cause notices.
(c) Land grants made during the years 1990-93 and cancelled vide letters dated 29.5.1994 and 18.2.1997, were restored as per directives of the then Prime Minister of Pakistan vide letter No. RS/MBR(LU)/405/98, dated 18.8.1998. This cancellation, as lateron clarified vide` letter No. SB-III/P1.- 421/632/1999, dated 17.8.1999, was not applicable to the following categories:-
(i) the land which has been decided by the Revenue Courts by the Commissioner/B.O.R. Or the Civil Courts,
(ii) lands lying within prohibited limits of Municipal Committees and Mandl Towns,
(iii) land lying within 20 chains of sanctioned villages, the disposal of which was prohibited under the Land Grant Policy, 1989 and such lands were to be utilized for asaish and future extension of village,
(iv) lands belonging to Defence Force quota,
(v) lands belonging to Forest Department.
(d) A decision was taken under the Chairmanship of Chief Executive of Pakistan, that all irregular and improper allotment should be cancelled and fresh allotments be made to the locals. The erstwhile Commissioners (All excepting Karachi) were directed vide letter dated 1.9.2000 of the Land Utilization Department to prepare fresh lists of all such grants which are required to be cancelled.
The Governor Sindh ordered that all irregular allotments/grants be referred to the Divisional Commissioners. Concerned with direction to examine the legality and correctness of such grants in exercise of their suo motu revisional powers and pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of being heard to the concerned. It was further decided that the Commissioners while passing orders should see that if the allottee was in cultivating possession of the land for five years, then their allotment should not be disturbed irrespective of the fact that whether he was not eligible for grant of the said land as per land grant policy. The erstwhile Commissioners vide letter No. PS/MBRRLU)/1103/2000, dated 1.11.2000 were, therefore, directed to take immediate action under suo Motu revisional powers for issuing of notices to all the grantees and pass appropriate orders accordingly. This process has been expedited vide letter No. SB-III/P/1- 42/718/2002, dated 7.10.2002 and No. SBIII/P/1-42140, dated 8.1.2003 written to all the Executive District Officer (Revenue) in Sindh.
This process is still continuing.
25. It is presumed that the Executive District Officei- (Revenue) Ghotki while passing the impugned order, must had considered all the aforesaid. Directives. Though no illegality is visible or pointed out, even then, if the appellants thinks that the impugned order is not in consonance and consistence with the aforesaid directives of the Government, he may approach the learned Member (L,U.) and point out noncompliance of the orders/directives of the Government (if any). To drag or to prolong the matter on judicial side before the Member (Judicial) is unwarranted and unjustified.
26. So far as (b) above is concerned, the subject of regrant/restoration of resumed grant is purely and exclusively ' being dealt with by the Land Utilization Department as earlier discussed in para. 3 ante.
27. The present appeal is not maintainable for the following main reasons:- Firstly:- It is barred by time as discussed in para. 2 above.
Secondly:- lftikhar Ahmed is neither the grantee nor the legal heir of ex-grantee as such he has absolutely no locus standi to file the present appeal or seek the restoration of cancelled grant.
Thirdly:- Late Ghulam Rasool is also neither the grantee nor the legal heir of ex parte as such he himself has no concern whatsoever over the disputed land, what to speak of his legal heirs.
Therefore, power-of-attorney executed .By the legal heirs of Ghulam Rasool to appellant lftikhar in respect 'of disputed -land has no legal sanctity and does not create any legal right or interest of the appellant over the disputed land.
Fourth/y:- The land in question is not available for regrant/restoration. The regrant earlier allowed by the Land Utilization Department, has also been cancelled by the Executive District Officer (Revenue) Ghotki under the authorization/directives of the learned Member (L.U.) vide his judicial order dated 19.4.2001. The order of the Executive District (Revenue) cancelling the regrant is deemed to be an order having been passed by the learned Member (L.U.), which is final and is not appealable before this Court.
Fifthly:- The scheme for, the sale of land to retiring/retired Government servant is no more in existence as such no provision of law for allowing regrant/restoration of grant is available.
Sixth/y:- The appellant has not challenged or shattered the eligibility of the local grantees and has also not proved any illegality in the impugned order.
28. The present appeal is utterly devoid of any legal sanction. It is totally misconceived and absolutely not maintainable for the detailed reasons given in above paras. Moreover; the subject of restoration of resumed grant (regrant) is being dealt with by the Land Utilization Department on administration side and no Member other than the Member (L.U.) is competent to - allow the restoration of resumed grant. The appellant approached the Land Utilization Department as discussed in paras. 21 and 22 above but failed to get the regrant order dated 18.10.1994 implemented. Subsequently; the grant has been cancelled by the Executing District Officer (Revenue) Ghotki, which virtually means that the regrant order dated 18.10.1994 also stands cancelled. If there is any confusion in this context that Executive District Officer (Revenue) cannot cancel the regrant order allowed by the Board of Revenue, proper course would be to seek guidance from the Land Utilization Department/Board of Revenue Sindh, Hyderabad on administrative side.
29. The epitome of the aforesaid discussion is that the present appeal being devoid of force fails and is-hereby dismissed with no order as to the costs.
30. A copy of this order may be forwarded to the learned Member (Land Utilization) Board of Revenue so that it is kept in the concerned file of regrant.
31. Announced. Dated this 21st day of October, 2003, camp at Sukkur. .