' These are two interconnected review petitions against one order, dated 22-10-1973 passed by the Additional Member (Mr. D. S. Soomro) B.O.R., Sind, whereby he rejected the appeals of the petitioners in respect of B. Nos. 732/1 to 4 area 16-0 Acres and 733/1 and 2 and 734/1, 2 area 16 acres of Deh Sharhari Taluka Shandadpur granted to respondents on Harap conditions.
3. Heard the petitioners as well as the counsel of the respondents. Perused the impugned order and examined the record produced by the Barrage representative. The main contention of the petitioners during the course o' hearing was that they had applied for grant of land in dispute and were present in the Katchery but in the impugned order it has been record -d that the petitioners did not apply. Thus, there is error apparent on the very face of the order as it would be evident from the register maintained for receipt of the applications by the B.M., Sanghar.
4. The counsel for the respondents mainly contends that the order which is subject-matter of review petition is very exhaustive and it requires no comments. The petitioners remained absent at the time of disposal of the land nor they applied at the time when the land was disposed of. The petitioner Ghulam Hussain applied for grant of disputed block as is evident from the order, dated 18-6-1973 but the C.O. Had rejected the request of the petitioner Ghulam Hussain mainly on two grounds viz. The petitioner remained absent at the time of disposal of land, (ii) the father of petitioner Ghulam Hussain already holds 25.0 Acres of land on his Khata.
5. I have verified the register of application maintained by the Barrage Mukhtiarkar, Sanghar. Its perusal shows that respondents Muhammad Yakoob and Ghous Bux had applied for grant of the land on 23-12-1972 and that the father of the petitioner Tagio also made an application for grant of the disputed land but there is no mention in the registers whether the present petitioners had applied for grant of land before its disposal in the open Katchery. The representative of the Barrage Department informed that no application or any request was made by the petitioners for the above purpose. However, the perusal of the order, dated 18-6-1973 of the C. 0 shows that Ghulam Hussain petitioner had applied for S. Nos. 733 by 1, 2 and 734/3, -4 but at the time of holding of the Katchery he remained absent and as such he cannot claim his right at present.
Section 8(i) of the W. P. B.O.R. Act, 1957, provides that review petition can only be entertained when new and important grounds are advanced which could not be produced at the time of hearing of the original appeal, or there is error apparent in the order. In the present case no new ground has been adduced or there is no error apparent in the said order which could warrant interference with the impugned order. Consequently the review petitions, merit no consideration and are rejected.
Review rejected.