' ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.-The dispute in this petition relates to 12 acres of agricultural land situated in unassessed S. No, 254 of Deh Lakha, Taluka, Kandiaro, District Nawabshah. This land was granted to one Nazir Ahmad by the. A. R.
0. Sukkur Barrage, in the year 1962. Thereafter, the grant of Nazir Ahmad was twice cancelled and restored between the years 1967-68 to 1969-70. In the year 1970-71, however, the land was again granted to Nazir Ahmad who then sold it to the petitioner Haji Mohammad Suleman, after obtaining permission from the A. R.
0. Sukkur Barrage, dated 24th November 1970. The purchaser Haji Mohammad Suleman thereafter took steps to cultivate the land, Consequently, the respondent No, 3, Haji Mohammad Siddique, filed an appeal against the grant before the Additional Commissioner on the ground that the land in question lay within twenty chains of the existing old village and, therefore, could not be granted without inviting objections from the residents of the village, but the subordinate Revenue officials concealed this fact and allowed the land to be granted to Nazir Ahmad by preparing wrong map showing another village. The Additional Commissioner, after going through the Barrage as well as the revenue record and the deh map, found that the land in question indeed fell within twenty chains of the existing old village adjoining Survey No, 250 but this fact had been concealed by the subordinate officers by preparing a wrong sketch. Accordingly, by his order dated 7th March, 1971, the Additional Commissioner cancelled the grant of Nazir Ahmad as being void ab initio and directed the Colonization Officer to dispose of the land, afresh, after inviting objections from the villagers and considering their requirements for `Asaish'.
' Being aggrieved by the order of the Additional Commissioner, petitioner Haji Mohammad Suleman went in Revision before the Board 'of Revenue. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, after hearing both the parties and their counsel held that although the rule of natural justice required that the petitioner ought to have been heard by the Additional Commissioner in the appeal but he saw no purpose in remanding the matter as the land being situated within 20 chains of the established village as shown by the record and the map, its grant to Nazir Ahmad without inviting objections was ab initio void and against the Land Grant Policy. He thus agreed with the Additional Commissioner and dismissed the Revision by his order dated 5th March, 1971. Hence this petition.
' Mr. M. Ibrahim Memon, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that admittedly the petitioner was not heard by the Additional Commissioner in the appeal and was thus denied opportunity of showing that the alleged village lying within twenty chains of the land was an unauthorised and disused village and that one of the two persons living in that disused village had also consented to the grant of the land to Nazir Ahmad. As such, the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, after having- agreed that the petitioner should have been heard by the Additional Commissioner in the appeal, ought to have remanded the matter to the Additional Commissioner for affording opportunity to the petitioner to produce such evidence in rebuttal.
We find the contention to be misconceived. It was conceded by the learned counsel that if the land lay within twenty chains of the village it could not be granted under the existing land grant policy except as directed by the Additional Commissioner. Both, the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur, and the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, on perusal of the Barrage and the Revenue record and the deh map found A that the land in question lay within twenty chains of the established village. Such being the finding of the fact, the petitioner cannot be heard to dispute the finding in this constitutional petition, based as it is on the official revenue record. That being so, both the authorities below were, indeed, right in holding the grant of the land to Nazir Ahmad, without inviting objections from the residents of the village, to be ab initio void and cancelling it and directing its fresh disposal after inviting objections from the residents of the village and considering their requirements for `Asaish'. Mr. Ibrahim Memon, however, submitted that in case of fresh grant of the laud by the A. R.
0. In implementation of Additional Commissioner's order dated 7th March 1971, the petitioner will have the right of first option in view of the fact that he earlier held the land by purchasing it with prior permission of the A. R.
0. Here, we would agree with the learned counsel. Indeed, the petitioner had purchased the land in dispute from the grantee Nazir Ahmad after permission for sale was given by the A. R.
0., Sukkur Barrage. That being so, if the petitioner was to be deprived of the land for the technical reason that the original grant to Nazir Ahmad was void for not inviting objections from the residents of the village, the least that equity would demand that in case of fresh grant of the said land by the A. R.
0., Sukkur Barrage, in pursuance of the Additional Commissioner's order, petitioner should have the right of first option. We would, accordingly, direct that in case of fresh grant of the land by the A. R.
C., the petitioner shall have the right of first option.
' With the above direction, the petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.