' MUSHIR ALAM, J.---The petitioner has impugned the orders, dated 12-8-1991, 12-12-1989 and 5-8- 1990 of Member Board or Revenue. Revenue Officer Kotri Brrage and Secretary (L.U.) Board of Revenue through instant petition.
' The petitioner claims to have been granted S.No. 48J measuring 7-25 areas of Deh Bhandho, Taluka Badin, District Badin.
' We have heard both the learned counsel at great length.
2. It is admitted position that the petitioner was granted land under statement of condition as contained in Notification, dated 20th November, 1972 issued under section 10 of Colonization, Government of Land, 1912. It is also admitted position that the petitioner has paid the A grant amount as determined and demanded. It however appears that such grant was cancelled by the respondent No.3 vide order impugned, which was restored by the Deputy Commissioner and again cancelled in appeal by DRO. It seems that subject land falls between two villages. Though the petitioner claims that such villages were sanctioned under Goth Abad Scheme, therefore, the grant made in 1972 is not effected by establishing villages in later point in time. The petitioner however, admitted that such land appears to have been sanctioned by the appropriate authority for village Assaish. It is also not disputed that the present petitioner has not put the land for, the cultivation purpose for which land was originally granted. It is also evidence from enquiry conducted by D.O.
(Revenue), dated 24-10-2003, that water pond over an area of 4 acres is available on the land which is being used by two villages on its either side and remaining 3.25 acres is being used as village Assaish. Such facts appear to have been confirmed by deceased petitioner's sons namely Sattar and Lakharino as is appearing from report of Mukhtiarkar, dated 29-3-2004 (available at page 91 of the file).
' To cut the controversy short contention of the learned counsel that if at all, land is reserved and required for purpose of village Assaish, he is entitled to be refunded grant %mount and such other sum as may be determined by the Collector. To this position, learned Additional A.-G. Mr: Noorani also concedes and the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 5 and 6 have no objection. The contents of condition 24 read as follows:-- "(24). (1) If the land or any portion thereof is required for any public purpose, the grantee shall on demand by the Collector surrender the wnole or so much of the land as may be required.
(2) If the land is surrendered under sub-rule (1), the grantee shall be entitled to the refund of the purchase price of the land if any, paid by him and such additional sum as may be determined by the Collector in. Accordance with the general principles applicable to the acquisition of land for public purpose, including any sum for the standing crops and structure, if any, on the land, and the said sums shall be recovered from the acquiring agency and paid to the grantee."
3. In view of the admitted position that the petitioner had fully paid the grant amount on 4-5-1989 any subsequent reservation of the subject granted land for village Assaish cannot be made without complying condition No.24 reproduced above. The Collector now D.C.O. (Revenue) is competent to determine the sum as contained in condition No.24 reproduced above. In all fairness the petitioner is entitled for the other sum, as may be determined by the Collector in accordance with the condition No.24 reproduced hereinabove. It is pointed out that the function of the Collector is being performed by District Officer, Revenue, Board of Revenue.
4. Under the circumstances, D.O. Revenue is directed to comply with condition No.24 of the Land grant Policy, dated 20th November, 1972. Let the amount of grant, as paid by the petitioner be refunded in addition to amount that may be payable under condition reproduced above. Such determination is to be made preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.
' The petition in terms of the above stands disposed of.