' This is an appeal against the order dated 22-11-1972 passed by the Revenue Commissioner, Sind, Hyderabad whereby he set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and upheld the appeal of the respondent in respect of panis Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Deh Reo Katcho Taluka Moro.
2. The facts of the case are already shown in the impugned order and need not be reproduced.
3. The counsel for the petitioners urged the following points :-
(i) The land of the petitioners was eroded away action of the River and after re-appearance it was being granted to the petitioners on lease from the year 1944-45 onwards upto date. The land of the respondents was also eroded and they have been taking up panis 15, 15-A and others situated at the extreme south and far away from the lands of the petitioners. The petitioners are in possession of panis No, 6 and others on the basis of Ijazatnamas issued by the Revenue authorities.
(ii) The policy for disposal of katcha land is that the Darya Khurdi holders are to be accommodated first and when their land re-appear and as such D.K. Rights of the petitioners were accommodated at their own places viz. Panis Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and others whereas the respondent was settled at panis 15 and 15-A and others.
(iii) The Deputy Commissioner, Nawabshah while passing the impugned order has ignored the D.K.
Rights of the petitioners which was established by the Additional Commissioner also. The fact that the PKM right of the petitioner could be recognized as they arc in possession of Ijazatnamas from 1945 onwards which was also ignored. The D. K. Rights of the parties were determined in 1954. The counsel quoted PLD 1973 Rev. Sind Abdul Haleem and 11 others v. Sardar Khan and others, wherein the policy regarding determination of D. K. Rights of the parties have been settled. The character of the land does not change if it becomes Pacca land due to the shifting of Bund or excavation of canal, and it can be granted in satisfaction of D. K. Rights in terms of memo dated 15-3-1963 of the Board of Revenue. He further relied on placitum (b) of the above PLD which says that the rights have been determined already and cannot be changed now.
(iv) ' The counsel further states that the order of 1954-55 whereby rights of the parties were determined was not appealed again and adjudicated.
4. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand, mainly contends that the respondent has established D. K. Right over 300 acres out of which she has been given 57 acres in satisfaction of her D. K. Rights. The order of Mr. F. I. Malik and Assistant Commissioner Moro, was set aside by the Additional Commissioner and he by his order dated 7-1-1967 laid down a policy for determination of D. K. Rights of the parties and in pursuance of the order of the Additional Commissioner the right of respondents were determined and they have been given the land in dispute in compact block by the Revenue Commissioner, Sind. The counsel also quoted PLD 1966 Kar.
314.
5. I have given due consideration to the arguments put forth by the counsels of the parties and have also examined the relevant record. The perusal of the Ijazatnama produced by the petitioners, shows that they have been granted the disputed land right from 1948-49 to 1971-72 on D. K. Right as well as on PKM right. The perusal of Ijazatnamas reveals that they have been enjoying the disputed land without payment of lease money as the owners of the land. The perusal of order dated 7-9-1967 of the Additional Commissioner Khairpur Division passed in appeal filed by the respondent in respect of the disputed land indicates vide para 4 that PKM right prior to 1952-53 would also be considered at par with D. K. Right because those rights were confirmed by the West Pakistan Board of Revenue, in various rulings. The policy for disposal and determination of D. K.
Rights over katcha land was announced by former Sind Government vide their circular dated 24- 12-1952, which provides that after satisfying the demand of Forest Department the remaining land should be disposed of as under :-
(a) The claims of Zamindars having Darya Khurdi Rights in the same Deh should first be satisfied.
Such Khatedars should be given cultivable land upto the extent of their cultivable Kabuli land eroded, in compact block as far as possible. Darya Khurdi claims in respect of lands in other Dehs should not be entertained.
(b) After satisfying the Darya Khurdi Rights of Khatedars the remaining land should be leased out to Haris or small Khatedars (Those owning more than 100 acres of land in all) up to twenty acres of cultivable land in each case.
6. In view of this position, I set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Nawabshah, for fresh determination of D. K. Rights or other Rights of the parties as per policy prevailing at relevant time.