MEHBOOB F. MOORAJ Versus MEMBER (L.U.), BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND HYDERABAD

AJMAL MIAN, J .--By this common judgment, we intend to dispose of the above three petitions. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petitions are that the petitioner No.l in Constitutional Petition No. - D-987 of 1978 and 2 petitioners in Constitutional Petition No. D-294 of 1980 and petitioner No.2 in Constitutional Petition No. D-243 of 1980 alongwith 12 other persons obtained agricultural land situated in Deh Kohistan-1 Taluka Mirpur Sakro, District Thatta on Yak Sala basis during the year 1968 under the Mechanised Farming Scheme. The aforesaid lessees applied on 1-1-1969 for 10 years lease which was granted on 21-1-1969. After that the above petitioners mentioned hereinabove except petitioner No.2 in C . P. No. D-243 of 1980 applied for permanent transfer which request was acceded to by an order dated 15-8-1969. It is the case of the said petitioners that they paid the full price by 1971 and got transfer order in their favour on 10-2-1971. It appears that deceased respondent No.3 namely, Sajjan filed an appeal against the above transfer; which was allowed by respondent No.2, i.e. Additional. Commissioner, Hyderabad, by his order dated 17-12-1974. It may be observed that in the above appeal respondent No.3 also applied for a status quo order which was passed on 16-9-1970. However, it seems that on 10-2-1971, petitioner No.l in the first petition transferred certain portion of the land in favour of petitioner No.2 and Petitioner No.2 in Constitutional Petition No.243 of 1980 and the two petitioners in Constitutional Petition' No. 294 of 1980 in favour of the petitioners Nos.l and 3 in Constitutional Petition No.243 of 1980, with the permission of the Revenue Officer.

It may be stated that the above transferees filed an appeal against the above cancellation order dated 17-12-1974, which was allowed partly by an order dated 16-4-1978 in which it was held that Sajjan had failed to prove his P. K M . rights and that the grant of 10' years lease was within the powers of the granting Authority. However, on the question of permanent grant it was held that it was illegal and the land was to be disposed of in accordance with law after the expiry of 10 years lease. Deceased respondent No. 3 Sajjan did not file any petition or other proceedings against the above order. However, the petitioners in the three petitions have filed the stove three petitions.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have noticed that the aforesaid transfers were made with the permission of the Revenue Officer, Ghulam Mohammad Barrage, but they were not heart either by respondent No.2 or respondent No.l at the time of passing of the impugned orders. In our view, it would be just and proper to remand the case to the respondent No. l with the direction` to hear the above appeal afresh after notice to the present petitioners and to the legal representatives' of Sajjan, who was the original appellant in the appeal and to dispose of the same in accordance with law, within a period of six months. It will be open to the parties to raise whatever legal pleas are available to them. There will be no order as to costs.

H . B . T . / 11-268/ K Order accordingly.