RAJIB Versus FAKIR MOHAMMAD AND OTHSRS

ORDER

This is a revision petition against the order of the learned Commissioner dated 21‑7‑71 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that he was not a party to the case and therefore has no right to come in appeal.

2. Facts of the case are given in the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue as well in the subsequent order passed by the C. O. Sukkur Barrage on 30‑6‑71. Therefore, they need not be reproduced.

3. There was dispute between Faqir Muhammad and Hafiz Muhammad Moosa which ultimately went to the Member, Board of Revenue in revision. The learned Member after hearing the parties remanded the case with a direction that the case may be decided afresh on merits after hearing the parties. The Barrage authorities instead of hearing the parties, involved the case, invited fresh offers with the result that the petitioner Rajab also applied for this land. The A. R. O. first decided the case in favour of Fakir Muhammad but his orders were set aside on the point of law. The Colonization Officer then himself heard the parties and decided the case again in favour of Fakir Muhammad. Against that order the petitioner filed an appeal with the Commissioner which was rejected on the grounds mentioned above. Hence this revision.

4. The Advocate for the petitioner contends that Rajab was a party to the case for the simple reason that after the learned M. B. R. remanded the case for fresh disposal, it implied that fresh offers were to be recorded and publicity was to be made. The original grant in favour of Fakir Muhammad was cancelled by the Barrage authorities in pursuance of the orders of the M. B. R. and therefore Rajab can validly claim to be a party to the case and that the learned Commissioner had not taken proper decision in the case.

5. The Advocate for the respondent contends that up to the level of Board of Revenue. Rajab was not a party and the decision of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, remanding the case to the Colonization Officer was also very clear that the Colonization Officer should decide the case afresh on merits after hearing the parties. He has not said anything in his order that fresh offers should be invited or fresh publicity should be made. Therefore, the Barrage authorities were wrong in inviting fresh offers for this land which was granted to Fakir Muhammad in 1960. Fakir Muhammad made the grant fully paid on 9‑7‑68, and T. O. Form was confirmed by the C. O. on 10‑7‑68. After confirmation of T. O. Form, Fakir Muhammad sold the land on 1‑8‑68 to Hafiz Muhammad Mcosa the present respondent as he became full owner of the land. In 1969 when the learned M. B. R. decided this matter he was not informed of this legal position. Fakir Muhammad developed this land and then sold it to him i.e. Muhammad Moosa, at Rs. 1,280 per acre, It will therefore be unjust and unfair if the land is cancelled and given to the petitioner who was not a party to the proceeding in the various Courts and did not even request for recording offer at any stage.

6. After hearing the parties and going through the record, I find that the orders of the learned M. B. R. were very clear that the case was being remanded to the C. O. for deciding it afresh on merits after hearing the parties. The parties to the proceedings were only Fakir Muhammad and Muhammad Moosa.

Therefore, the Barrage authorities were not competent to invite fresh offers and allow other persons to be interested in this land. The learned Commissioner has very correctly held that the petitioner was not a party to the case and therefore he has no right to come in appeal. I accordingly find no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower Courts, and the revision is accordingly rejected.

Order announced.

Revision rejected.