' These are two petitions for review of one order dated 27-7-1977 passed by my learned predecessor in respect of S. No, 195 of deh Abdu Mahindo, Taluka Tando Mohammad Khan, District Hyderabad.
2. Both the parties were represented by their counsel and were heard on 23-5-1978. The orders were reserved for today.
3. The facts of the case are that the disputed land was granted to Adam by the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad on peasant Khatedari conditions. Mahboob Khan preferred an appeal which was upheld by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad vide his order dated 23-8-1976 on the ground that he had lessor area than the other party and he is mohagidar also. Adam preferred an appeal against that order, which was upheld by my learned predecessor vide the impugned order and the land was ordered to be disposed of afresh. Aggrieved by this order, both the parties have preferred these review petitions.
4. The main contentions raised by the counsel for Adam are that only he had applied for land in katchery and that he was eligible to its grant in terms of Old Land Grant Policy. The counsel for Mahboob Khan contends that the land is quite contiguous to his other lands and he had also applied for the land and was present in the katchery but his request was ignored and the land was granted to. Adam. He contends that 4-0 acres out of his total grant of 32 acres has gone under road and has lesser area than the other party. Mehboob Khan has also submitted an affidavit in support of his contention that he was present in the Katchery.
5. I have considered the arguments of both the parties. My learned predecessor had cancelled the grant of Mahboob Khan on the ground that he had not applied for grant of disputed land in katchery and he had no judicial mohag over the land and had also considered both of the petitioners not entitled to grant of the land because they already held sufficient lands on their khata. Adam had 38 acres of land on his khata and obviously there is no adequate justification for grant of disputed land to him. Similarly Mehboob Khan had 28 acres and ordinarily he should also not be entitled to its grant but the only mitigating point in his case is that the land is contiguous to his other lands and its grant to anyone else would create complication in cultivation and management of his other holding. As such Mehboob Khan has a better claim to its grant than Adam. The representative of R. O. State that an application of Mehboob Khan, stated to have been submitted in katchery, is available on record but it does not bear signature of any officer and it cannot be said whether this application was actually presented in the katchery. It is not proper to adjudicate upon the points of facts at review level. His case is, therefore, remanded to the R. O. Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad for investigation and if he had actually applied for grant of the disputed land in katchery then the land should be granted to him in terms of old Land Grant Policy. In other case, the land should be disposed of afresh in terms of new Land Grant Policy.
6. In the result, the review petition of Mahboob Khan is partially upheld and his case is remanded to the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad in terms of the above observations and the review petition of Adam is rejected.