1. ' This revision application under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 18-10-1982 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Sukkur, in Civil Appeal No. 34/1984: It has arisen in the following circumstances: ' The respondent No.1 (Muhammad Shafi) filed First Class Civil Suit No. 183/1978, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ghotki for declaration that the order, dated 6-5-1975 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sukkur, and an order dated 26-7-1975 passed by a Member, Board of Revenue Sind disentitling him from getting land allotted as a Hari, were illegal, ultra vires, in excess of/without jurisdiction and were liable to be set aside; and permanent injunction restraining the applicants herein from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit land. The suit was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ghotki, by his judgment dated 6-1-1982. He preferred Civil Appeal No.34/1982 in the District Court, Sukkur. The appeal was allowed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Sukkur by his judgment dated 18-10-1982.
2. ' The respondent No.1 claimed grant of Survey numbers 78 and 98 in Deh Pucca Tibi, Taluka Ghotki, District Sukkur, on the basis of his status as a "Hari" in the Deh. His claim was rejected by the Assistant Colonization Officer and the land was granted to Muhammad Hayat, Predecessor-in- interest of the applicants Nos.1 and 2, and the applicant Umed Ali. He preferred an appeal before the Commissioner and it was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner by his order, dated 6-5- 1975, holding that he was not a "Hari" within the scope of the Statement of Conditions issued under section 10(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, as notified in the extraordinary issue, dated 21st November, 1972 of the Gazette of Government of Sind. He went in revision before the Board of Revenue and that too was dismissed by a Member of the Board of Revenue upholding the view adopted by the Additional Commissioner.
3. ' It appears from the documents filed in the suit that the claim of the respondent No.1 to his entitlement to the grant of land was rejected by the Assistant Colonization Officer at an open Kutchery on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirement of having resided in the Deh or in an adjoining Deh or the Tapa or even in the District for ten years. The learned Additional Commissioner, upholding the view of the Assistant Colonization Officer, further held that respondent No. 1 had not proved that he had resided in the Deh or Tapa or the District for a period of ten years prior to 1st July, 1970 as provided in Condition No.6 of the aforesaid conditions. The learned Member Board of Revenue based his decision, while rejecting the revision application, on the ground that the respondent No.1 had not resided in the Deh or the Tapa or the district for ten years prior to 1st July, 1970 and he was not entitled to the grant of land as a "Hari". The learned trial Judge upheld the view adopted by the Revenue Authorities. The learned appellate Court Judge held the view that the entitlement of the respondent No.1 was not hit by the condition contained in clause (4) of Condition 6 of the conditions and, therefore, the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities were ultra vires and without jurisdiction.
4. ' The suit land was disposed of under the provisions of the statement of conditions issued under section 10(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 as published in the Government of Sind Gazette, Extraordinary issue, dated 21st November, 1972. The statement of conditions relates to the grant of State land to Haris (Peasants) small Khatedars and Mohagdars in the Kotri, Guddu and Sukkur Barrage areas. In the instant case, the question involved was the status of "Hari". The terms "Hari" (Peasant) is defined in clause (g) of condition 2 of the said Conditions as under:- "(g) 'Hari' (Peasant) means a person owning no land or owning less than 16 Acres of land who for 10 years has been residing in a Deh or in the adjoining Deh or Tapa or District in which the land applied for is situated and who has been cultivating the land of Zamindars, Government land or land in his own holding personally or through any member of his family which shall include his father, son, wife, brother or major grandson".
5. 'It would appear that the conception of "Hari" in the conditions is that of a person who does not own any land or owns land less than 16 Acres and who has been residing in the Deh, or the adjoining Deh or Tapa or the District in which the land is situated for 10 years. In the case of the respondent No.1, the Assistant Colonization Officer held that he had not put up the requisite residence for 10 years. The learned Additional Commissioner did not only uphold that view but also held further that the respondent No.1 has not resided in the Deh or the adjoining Deh or Tapa or the District for a period of 10 years prior to 1st July, 1970 as provided in clause (4) of Condition 6 of the conditions.
6. The learned Member of Revenue also held the same view. Clause (4) of Condition 6 reads as under:- "(4) The grant to Haris shall be made in open Katchery where objections may be raised against improper selection of a Hari; provided that no objection shall be raised in case of a Hari who has resided in same Deh, or adjoining Deh or Tapa or District for 10 years prior to 1st July, 1970."
7. 'It is clear from the reading of the clause (4) of Condition 6 reproduced above that the condition of residence in the same Deh or the adjoining Deh or Tapa or District for 10 years prior to 1st July, 1970 does not qualify the definition of "Hari" contained in clause (g) of Condition 2 reproduced above; but it provides protection to Haris who have resided in the same Deh or adjoining Deh or Tapa or District for 10 years prior to 1st July, 1970 from the objection that may be raised at the open Kutchery against his entitlement. The respondent No.1 did not seek protection provided under clause (4) of Condition 6 and the learned Additional Commissioner and the learned Member, Board of Revenue were at error in judging the case of the respondent No.1 within the sphere of clause (4) of Condition
6. The learned counsel for the parties have, accordingly, consented that the revision application may be allowed and the case may be remanded to the Additional Commis sioner to re-examine it on merits keeping it outside the sphere of clause (4) of Condition No.6.
8. ' In the result, the revision application is allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Additional Commissioner for fresh decision as indicated above. By consent of the counsel, the parties are directed to maintain status quo. There is no order for costs.