1. Both the revisions have been filed against one order passed on 3-4-1968 by the learned Director, G.
2. M. B. Project, whereby the appeals of the petitioners were rejected.
2. Facts of the case are that the Deputy Colonization Officer granted land to the respondents in Deh Mor Taluka Tando Bago on Harap conditions from Kharif 1962-63 vide his order, dated 2-4-1962.
3. Being dissatisfied with this order of the learned Deputy Colonization Officer, the petitioners preferred joint petition of appeal to the Revenue Officer which was rejected by him vide his order, dated 17-12-1962. The petitioner filed separate appeals to the learned Director, G. M. B. Project which were rejected. Hence this revision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners had contended before the then learned Member (J & L R), Board or Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore, wherein he had sought the following information before taking decision by him:
(i) How much area is originally owned by Muhammad Hashim, the father of the petitioner?
(ii) How much area was already granted to him under the Land grant policy?
(iii) How much area was given to him under the Mechanized Farming Scheme?
4. ' He had also directed the petitioners to produce the documents to indicate that no other land stands granted in their favour from any other source. The respondents were also directed to produce evidence that apart from the land under dispute, they had no other land on their Khata.
5. 4.The Supervising Tapedar who is present in the Court informs that the father of the petitioner Muhammad Hashim has land as under:- {{TABLE}} Deh Dubro Taluka Tando Bago. 101-35 Acres.
6. Deh Mati Taluka Matli. 6-13 Acres.
7. Deh Mor Taluka Matli. 23-28 Acres.
8. Deli Mor Taluka Matli. 100-00 Acres.
9. (Mechanized Farming Scheme).
10. Total 231-36 Acres.
11. ' In addition to this it is presumed that the petitioner's father must be having another land in some other Talukas which he wants to hide and also has not come out with the truth in the lower Courts.
12. Since the petitioner's father is well-to-do man and a Zamindar by profession, it cannot be said that his sons can be Haris. The respondents are definitely Haris and their claim is superior to that of the petitioner. Accordingly both the revisions are rejected.
13. Revisions rejected.