1. ' This is a revision petition filed against the order of Additional Commissioner dated 6-3-1982 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner is present alongwith his Advocate and respondent present in Court who pleaded his case in person.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are given in the impugned order and need not be reproduced.
3. ' The main contentions of the Advocate for petitioner are that the disputed land is unreleased land and that there is no bar for the grant of lease of unreleased land to the person who is owning more than 16 acres of land. He admitted that the petitioner owns more than 16-00 acres of land. The Advocate contended that disputed land is adjacent to petitioner's kabuli land hence he is more eligible for the grant of land. In support of his contention he has produced photostat copy of Dakhil Kharij.
4. ' The respondent stated that he was getting the lease of land of S. No,. 200 A & B since 1976, for which he also paid initial deposit and obtained Ejazatnama etc. He further said that S. No,. 200/B is still in his possession and is kabuli on which he has spent huge amount on development. In support of his contention he has produced the Ejazatnama and land Revenue receipts etc. He also contended that he is owning S. No,. 857/5, 6, 7, 8 as his kabuli land which is adjacent to disputed land. He could not produce any document in support of his contentions. The respondent further contended that he owns less than 16-00 acres of land and the disputed land was granted to him in Katchery.
5. I have heard the parties at length and perused the relevant record. From the perusal of deh map it appears that the disputed land is falling in front of S. Nos, 200/A & 200/B, much are owned by petitioner and respondent respectively. Since the petitioner is admittedly in possession of more than 16-CO acres of land, the respondent is more eligible for the grant of disputed land. I am therefore convinced that the orders of Colonization Officer and Additional Commissioner, Sukkur are proper. I therefore see no reasons to interfere with these orders. The revision petition is accordingly rejected.