' This is a review petition against the order, dated 19-5-1971 passed by me whereby the revision petition of the respondent regarding alienation of an area of 39-34, 1/6 acres of agricultural land on deh Khan, Taluka Ghorabari and District Thatta, was accepted by me.
2. The facts of the case are contained in the impugned order and it is needless to repeat them here.
3. The counsel for the petitioner contended that according to circular letter, dated 5-11-1962 of the West Pakistan, Land Commission the restrictions contained in para. 25 would not apply if all the joint co-sharers sell their undivided shares but in the present case the petitioner having his individual exclusive and joint holding, above economic holding, had only sold his share and as such his case was quite different from that quoted in the circular.
4. I have considered the case. The point urged by the counsel for the petitioner was considered at the time when the impugned order was passed. The main objective of para. 25 of the M. L. R. 64 has been to prevent fragmentation of holdings. The salient features of the scheme are as under :-
(a) The scheme has categorized two kinds of holdings (0 economic holding and (ii) subsistence holding and it has been so framed as to prevent an economic holding as the case may be, from further fragmentation.
(b) Such holdings are not allowed to be sub-divided but the entire holding can be alienated.
(c) In case of holdings which are less than subsistence holding owner can alienate any part of this holding to other owner of the same village, Deh or Monaz so as to enable the latter to consolidate his holding and upgrade it.
' These restrictions were imposed to ensure better management and better agricultural production of the holding and prevent the same from further fragmentation.
5. The West Pakistan Land Commission considered the question of alienation of joint-holding in their meeting held on 8th September, 1962 and it was decided vide their letter No, A. S. R. 796- 62/5794-L. C, dated 5-11-1962 that so long as the joint-holding continued to have the prescribed area of subsistence or economic holding, the provisions of paragraph 25 would not apply. These instructions were also issued to achieve the same objective with only this difference that here instead of individual holding a joint-holding is taken into consideration. Under these instructions if the joint holding is a subsistence holding or an economic holding it should not be by any alienation allowed to fall below the prescribed limit. The instructions of the Land Commission are quite clear and I do not see any force in the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner that his case is not covered by these instructions.
6. The petitioner has not agitated sufficient ground for the review of the order. Although there is no specific restriction laid down in rule 11 of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959, regarding, the conditions in which review will be entertained but obviously the review cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of harassment of the parties and unless there are compelling grounds, which if ignored will lead to any injustice, the review cannot be entertained. I do not see any reason to entertain the present review petition and consequently dismiss the review petition accordingly.
Review .