1. ' AJMAL MIAN, J,--This petition is directed against the orders dated 11-3-1978 and 14-6-1978 passed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 respectively. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner was allotted survey numbers mentioned in the petition, admeasuring 32 acres, situated in Kotri Barrage under a grant 1961-62. It is the case of the petitioner, that he developed the land on spending considerable amount. After that he cultivated the same. It is also the case of the petitioner that due to seepage and Kalar certain portion of the land could not have been cultivated. It seems that the Revenue Officer Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad served a notice dated 2-8-1965 cancelling the above grant on the ground that the petitioner had infringed the conditions of the grant as he was absent from his land and was not residing there. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order filed Appeal No,721/70, which was dismissed by an order, dated 9-5- 1973. After that the petitioner made a representation to the Provincial Minister Revenue, who forwarded the same to the Additional Member Board of Revenue, Sind, who treated the above representation as a suo motu revision. The Additional Member Board of Revenue by his order dated 16-9-1976 remanded the case to the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division. After the above remand order, the appeal was again heard by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, who by his order dated 11-3-1978 dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner was not residing on the land from the year of the grant and a certificate issued at his request by the Mukhtiarkar was not reliable. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order filed a revision, namely, Case No,SROR 572/77-78 which was dismissed by the Member Board of Revenue by his order dated 14-6-1978. The petitioner has filed the present petition against the above impugned ordeRs, ' It may be observed that in spite of the notice of this petition, the respondents have chosen not to contest the above petition as nobody has turned up on behalf of the respondents nor they have filed any counter-affidavit 2. In support of the above petition, Mr.A.F.M. Mokaram, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Khasra Gardawari (Annexure "C" to the Petition) which was available on the revenue record indicates that factually the petitioner was cultivating some of the portion of the land. He has further submitted that certain portion of land could not have been cultivated on account of seepage and Kalar. In support of the latter contention he has referred to Annexure "G" to the petition, which is an alleged notice undated issued by the Barrage Mukhtiarkar, Golarchi, stating that due to seepage and kalar (Saltish Soil) is not cultivable and, therefore, the petitioner was asked to appear before the Revenue Officer to give statement whether he wanted to retain the land or wanted alternate land in lieu of the land in question. We have noticed that in none of the orders neither the Khasra Gardawari has been referred to nor this alleged notice. The respondents are not present either to admit or to contradict the authenticity of the above two documents, no counter affidavit has been filed. In our view, it will be just and proper to remand the case to respondent No,3 with the direction to decide the revision afresh after taking into consideration the alleged above two documents if they are genuine. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.