' This is an appeal against the order dated 17-7-1978 of the Additional Commissioner, Sukkur whereby he cancelled the disputed grant of 20 acres out of U. A. No, 43 of Deh Saniloi, taluka Ubauro made to the petitioner on harap conditions from Kharif 1976-77 and reserved the same for asaish of the village Chachar Shar, being within 20 chains of that village.
2. Mr. Manzoor Ahmed Shaikh Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent on the last date but he chooses to remain absent today. The case is therefore proceeded ex parte.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the case papers. The counsel contended that the petitioner had been allowed by way of permanent grant an area of 20 acres from U. A. No, 43 on previous Khasmokal and harap rights by the Colonization Officer, Guddu Barrage on 22-4-1976 in open katchery. The total area of U. A. No, 43 was 8-0 acres. The Additional Commissioner cancelled the grant as, according to him, it was hit by para. 9 of the statement of conditions, vide Government of Sind (Land Utilization Department) Notification No, KBI-1/30/72/7179/7784, dated 20- 11-1972. Evidently this area remained under cultivation with the petitioner Adit on previous Khasmokal and therefore there was hardly any reason to disturb the grant so made, particularly when 6-0 acres of land in U. A. No, 43 still remained available. The counsel asserted that the land was outside the prohibited belt.
4. Para. 9 of the Statement of Conditions dated 20-11-19712 reads as follows : "9. No land lying within 20 chains of established pillages shall be granted unless it is separated by at working canal."
The intention of this provision in the Statement of Conditions is to make reservation of Government land for all future expansions in the villages.
5. The petitioner is admitted to be a hari with previous Khasmokal right in deh Saniloi. Intention of the Land Grant Policy obviously is to A accommodate the haris in recognition of their Khasmokal rights in the deli in the first instance, and not that they should in any case be ousted without being provided with alternative land. Para. 4 of the policy lays down the order of priorities in making the grants to haris and clause (a) of it reads :-
(a) the Hari holding Khasmokal lease in respect of land for which he applies provided that he has brought the land or a portion thereof under cultivation for atleast two years preceding the grant."
' Thus the petitioner had an apparent right to grant of land in deli and that he enjoyed first preference to get the land in dispute but for the provision of para. 9 of the statement of Conditions.
The policy even authorises generally all the Colonization Officers to make departure from the order of priorities laid down in para. 4 to accommodate such haris who have been ousted from their Khasmokal lease due to reservation made by Government in such land, vide proviso to para. 4 of the Statements. This highlights the element of preferential treatment to be accorded to haris with previous Khasmokal rights.
6. In the instant case, even if I accept the contention of the Additional Commissioner that the area in dispute lay within 20 chains of village Chachar Shar (which is still controverted by the petitioner), I find no reason to ignore, much less refuse, accommodating the petitioner within the same U. A.
No, 43 by shifting the grant in U. A. No, 43 to outside the prohibited belt.
7. Law has to be construed liberally in a just, fair and equitable manner. As the law stands the area lying within 20 chains around established village shall be reserved for asaish of villages, vide para. 9 of the Statement of Conditions. This obviously refers to only Government land. Government land beyond 20 chains can, however, be disposed of to the deserving haris according to their preferential rights and in consistence with the policy in force.
8. The petitioner who is a hari with Khasmokal right has the first preference, vide para. 4(a) of the policy, to grant of land in the deh. The disputed piece is a part of U. A. No, 43 which admeasures 8-0 acres and is said to be wholly available. The petitioner is therefore in all fairness entitled to get area equal to his Khasmokal right in U. A. No, 43 or anywhere else, in the deh outside the prohibited belt in preference to others in case his disputed grant is hit by para. 9 of the policy. As a general policy guideline this may be feasible in respect of unassessed Naclass Numbers only.
9. However, in case of Survey Numbers, disposal will have to be in consonance with the legal provisions in respect of subsection (1) of section 133, Land Revenue Act, 1967 read with rules 66 and 67 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968.
10. I am, therefore, inclined to uphold the appeal to the extent that the area within 20 chains shall be reserved for village on re-demarcation and the grant of 2-0 acres to the petitioner maintained outside the prohibited belt of the village. Balance area of U. A. No, 43 outside the prohibited belt should also be put in Schedule and disposed of to eligible haris in the light of policy in force.