1. 4 ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.-The Petitioner has challenged in this petition the order dated 24-4- 1975 passed by the Commissioner, Hyderabad and orders dated 14-2-1980 and 11-11.1981 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue on the revision and the review application respectively tiled by the petitioner. The admitted position in the case is that an area of 10.34 acres out of lands purchased by the Petitioner in an auction was excluded on the ground that it was a kabuli land and therefore could not put to auction. The order for exclusion of the above area of land out of the grant of the petitioner was passed by the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, after taking cognizance of the case on the basis of letter No, 7283 dated A 2-12-1974, addressed to Deputy Secretary (L. U.) Board of Revenue Sind, by the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage. It was reported by the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage in the above letter that the respondent No, 4, claimed that his father Faiz Mohammad, owned Survey Nos. 585, 586 and 587 in Deh Sutyari, Taluka and District Badin, which has been later assigned survey Nos. 593, 594 and 595 by the Land Record Officer, as per Ghat-wadh Form No, 9.
2. The Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, took up the case on the basis of the above information and issued notices both to the Petitioner and respondent No, 4 and after hearing them came to the conclusion that out of the area of 60 acres of U. A. No, 184 which was auctioned in favour of the petitioner, 10.34 acres was kabuli land belonging to the deceased father of respondent No, 4 and as such Barrage authorities were not competent to dispose of the same in auction in favour of the Petitioner. He accordingly ordered that this area be excluded from the grant of the Petitioner.
3. Against this order of the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, a revision was filed before the Member, Board of Revenue who maintained the order passed by the Commissioner, Hyderabad. A review application filed before the Member, Board or Revenue by the petitioner against the order passed in revision also filed.
4. ' Mr. Mohammad Ali Shaikh, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended before us that the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, acted illegally in passing the order in this case as an original Court as by doing so he deprived the petitioner of an opportunity of filing an appeal which the Petitioner was entitled if the order was passed by a subordinate functionary of the Revenue Department. It is contended that the original grant was made in favour of the Petitioner by the Revenue Officer who alone could cancel the grant of the Petitioner. It is further contended that the finding of the Commissioner as well as that of Member, Board of Revenue, holding that an area of 10.34 acres out of grant of the petitioner was "Kabuli" land belonging to the deceased father of respondent No, 4 is erroneous as the land allotted to the Petitioner was different from the land claimed by respondent No,
4. The learned counsel also contended that the petitioner had claimed adverse possession over the land which point has not been decided by the Tribunal below. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner has no substance. The Commissioner, Hyderabad Division passed the order dated 24.4-1975 in exercise of his power under section 164 of Sind Land Revenue Act which is as follows "(2) A Commissioner or Collector may, at any time of his own Motion or on an application made to him within ninety days of the passing of any order, call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, any Revenue Officer under his control."
5. ' Mr, Mohammad Ali Shaikh, the learned counsel for the Petitioner Contends that since the order of the Commissioner has been passed at the instance of respondent No, 4, the Commissioner, Hyderabad 'Division could exercise power under subsection (2) of section 164 of Sind Land Revenue Act, only within 90 days of the grant in favour of Petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel has no merit. It is evident from the order of the Commissioner dated 24.4-1975 that cognizance was taken by him on the basis of the information laid before him by the letter of Revenue Officer, Kotri, addressed to Deputy Secretary Board of Revenue. Therefore, the bar of 90 days mentioned in subsection (2) of section 164 of the Act was not attracted at all. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the order of Commissioner being in the nature of an original order it was subject to an appeal before the Member, Board of Revenue, which in fact was availed by the petitioner but the Member, Boaid of Revenue, wrongly treated it as a revision and decided it as such. The provision of appeal is contained in section 161 of the Sind Land Revenue Act, 1967, which is as under :- "161. Appeals. -(1) Save as otherwise provided by this Act, an appeal shall lie from an original or appellate order of a Revenue Officer as follows, namely-
(a) to the Collector, when the order is made by an Assistant Collector, of either grade ;
(b) to the Commissioner, when the order is made by a Collector ;
(c) to the Board of Revenue only on a point of law, when the order is made by &Commissioner : Provided that-
(i) When an original order is confirmed on first appeal, a further appeal shall not lie ;
(ii) when any such order, is modified or reversed on appeal by the Collector, the order made by the Commissioner on further appeal, if any, to him shall be final.
6. ' A reading of the above provision of law will show that an appeal under section 161 (1) (c) will lie to the Board against the order of Commissioner only on a point of law whereas under section 164 while exercising the revisional power the Board could pass any order in relation to the order of Commissioner as it may think fit. The powers of revision thus exercised by the Board were of much larger import than the appellate power conferred under section 161 (1) (c) of the Act. The learned counsel was unable to show that exercise of the revisional power by respondent No,.1 was defective in any manner. In fact respondent No, 1, considered all the contentions raised before him by the Petitioner including the purely factual aspect of the case namely whether the land excluded from the grant of the Petitioner was the same as was claimed by respondent No, 4 as "Kabuli" land and he agreed with the findings of the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division. These factual contentions were further considered by respondent No, 1 in the review petition and with reference to evidence before him were rejected, We are therefore of the view that no exception can be taken to the orders passed by respondent No, 1 in revision and review. These orders do not suffer from defect of any jurisdictional character and findings of facts arrived at in these orders, are binding on us in constitutional jurisdiction. There is no substance in this petition which is dismissed summarily.