' This is a revision petition against the order dated 6-11-1975 of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, in respect of mutation of share in S. No, 80 and others of Deli Dadwah, Taluka Sujawal.
2. The petitioner is present in person. The respondent is present with his counsel Mr. Bhimraj Advocate. Munshi Mohammad Saleh Tapedar is present with record. In the first instance, the counsel for the respondent requested for adjournment but his request was refused as this is an old case and there has already been many adjournments. Subsequently the petitioner requested for adjournment on the ground that his Advocate had not yet come. His request for adjournment was also refused but the case was kept for being taken up in the last to enable the counsel for the petitioner to attend the hearing. The counsel did not come up to 12-30 noon and consequently the petitioner was called upon to argue his case.
3. The petitioner contends that there were earlier decisions, in his favour and that the order dated 19-12-1973 passed by the then Deputy Commissioner, Thatta (Mr. Abdul Aziz Ashrafi) was proper. He is not able to substantiate his contentions. Besides, whatever may be the position of the case, the Deputy Commissioner, Thatta was not to review the order passed on his predecessor without obtaining prior sanction of the Commissioner as required by section 162(2)(ii) of the Land Revenue Act. In view of this position, the order dated 19-12-1973 passed by the tnen Deputy Commissioner, Matta was not maintainable and tie order passed by the Additional Commissioner is, therefore, quite appropriate. The revision petition merits no consideration and is, therefore, rejected.
Revision rejected.