' This is a revision petition against the order dated 28-4-1969 of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad directing the petitioner to move the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu, for review of his order dated 25-2-1969.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the Mahalkttri, Kohistan granted 20 acres of land in Deh Babar Bund to the petitioner Abdul Latif for the year 1968-69. The respondent preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu, on the ground that his well came within the area leased out to Abdul Latif and that an area of 2 acres was reserved by the Collector during the year 1951 for asaish purpose. The Deputy Commissioner Dadu accordingly cancelled the lease and reserved the entire area for asaish purpose.
The petitioner preferred an appeal to the learned Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad on the ground that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Jadu, was passed in his absence and that the well was situated in some other area and not in the disputed area. The Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, directed the petitioner to move for review of the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner Dadu, if he felt that some mischief had been done to him. It is against that order the petitioner has come in revision.
3. Mr. Nisar Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner contended that if he was to file a review petition as advised by the learned Additional Commissioner, he would lose his right of filing appeal against that order under section 161 of land Revenue Act, as such appeals are barred under section 163 (4) of the above act. He further argued that no review shall lie against that order for which the appeal has been preferred vide section 163 (d) of the Sind Land Revenue Act.
4. So far the facts of the case are concerned Advocate for the petitioner produced an attested copy of the telegram which shoved that Abdul Latif had informed the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu, on 24-2-1969 that his wife was seriously ill and that he could not attend his Court on the 25th.
Obviously, therefore, the stand taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu, about his absence without intimation was not warranted by the facts.
5. The respondent Mr. Khair Muhammad on the other hand contended that 2 acres were reserved by the then Collector in 1951 for asaish purpose and that the land under dispute was never leased out to any one and that it had all along been used for asaish purposes by the residents of the adjoining villages.
6. After going through the record and hearing the arguments, I am convinced that the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner was not proper and was not in conformity with the provisions of section 163(d) of the Sind Land Revenue Act. Once an appeal is filed against an order the question of review by the lower Court does not arise. In view of these facts I set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner on the point of law and remand the case to him for fresh decision.