' This is a revision petition against the order dated 25-2-1969 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur, whereby he rejected the petitioner's appeal regarding grant of serial No, 221/1-4 Acres Deh Churiri, Taluka Khairpur on full rate conditions.
2. The facts of the case are that the disputed land was granted to the respondent by the Assistant Revenue Officer, Sukkur Barrage, Hyderabad on full rate conditions from Kharif, 1965-66. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur, claiming Mohag right over the disputed land. His petition was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur, vide the impugned order mainly on the ground that the petitioner had no exclusive Mohag right over the disputed land and had come 4 years after the grant of the disputed land to the respondent.
3. The counsels for the parties urged the following points :- A-Petitioner :
(i) The disputed land had been granted to the respondent on the basis of his Mohag right of serial No, 222. The respondent is not the only owner of the land. He has exchanged the serial No, 222 for serial No, 235 with Ghulam Rasool Affidavit of Ghulam Rasool produced).
(ii)The land is within 20 chains of village and it could not, therefore, be disposed of. The villagers were never consulted and no publicity was made. The petitioner had no knowledge about disposal of the land.
(iii) Respondent did not need of land and he had sold it by registered deed to Jan Muhammad. He had not got T.
0. Form and he could not, therefore, alienate the land. B-Respondent :
(i) The respondent had major share in serial No, 222. He had never exchanged it with Ghulam Rasool.
(ii) The point of 20 chains was not raised by the petitioner at the early stages and could not be raised now vide PLD 1966 (W. P.)
125. Besides the land was disposed of in 1965 and the policy of restrictions on disposal within 20 chains was passed in 1966.
(iii) It was full paid offer and issue of T.
0. Form was not necessary for the alienation. The land was granted to the respondent in 1965 and he sold it in 1967.
(iv) The Mukhtiarkar had come to the site and had disposed of the land there. The village has sufficient land for expansion.
(v) According to condition No, 8 of the agreement there is no condition about issue of T.
0. Form and there was no contravention of the conditions of the grant if the land was sold to Jan Muhammad.
(vi) There were concurrent findings of lower authorities which could be disturbed only in exceptional cases and there is no such circumstance in the present case. This view is supported by the following rulings :-
(a) PLD 1966 (W. P.) 66.
(b) PLD 1966 (W. P.) 80. (e) PLD 1963 (W. P.) 30.
4. I have considered the case. The respondent was a sharer in serial No, 222 at the time of grant of the disputed land to him and the land was granted to him on the basis of Mohag right while the petitioner had no particular right for grant of the land to him. The land was granted to the respondent in the year 1965 but the petitioner came against it only in 1969. If at all the petitioner was actually interested in the land, he could have offered to purchase the land when it was released for disposal. The ban on disposal of land within 20 chains village site was imposed by the Board of Revenue vide their Memo No, 1136-66/1968-P-III, dated 30-11-1966 and the land was granted to the respondent in 1965 that is earlier than the ban and as such the grant made to the respondent is not hit by the ban. Besides, the land was fully paid. According to condition No, 8 of the agreement in respect of the grant executed by the respondent, he could alienate the land after full payment and there is no mention about any condition requiring issue of T.
0. Form before the alienation. The condition requiring issue of T.
0. Form before the alienation was incorporated in the agreement form vide Memo. No, 5728- 67/1850-P-III, dated 5-9-1967 of the Government of West Pakistan, Land Utilization Department. This amendment is much after the grant of the land to the respondent and it would not, therefore, affect his grant and there was no contravention of the conditions of grant if the respondent had alienated the land after full payment but before issue of T.
0. Form.
5. In view of the above, the order of the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur, is quite justified. There is no merit in the revision petition, which is dismissed.
6. The parties may be informed accordingly.