' This is a revision petition against the order dated 16-6-1971 passed by the Additional Commissioner and Settlement Commissioner (Land) Hyderabad, whereby he rejected the petitioner's appeal in respect of serial Nos. 84 and others Deb Balidara, Taluka Khairpur Nathan Shah, District Dada.
2. The facts of the case are that the disputed land was treated as evacuee property. The petitioner requested that the serial Nos. Belonged to him and may be excluded from the evacuee property pool. His request was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu vide his order dated 6-1-1971 for want of sufficient proof and he was directed to seek his remedy in competent Court. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Additional Commissioner Settlement Commissioner (Land) Hyderabad, which was rejected vide the impugned order.
3. The petitioner contended that the disputed land was his ancestral property as per entries in the number-Shumaries pertaining to the years 1903-04 to 1908-09 and that it is not an evacuee property.
4. I have considered the case. The disputed land has been treated' as evacuee property. According to section 22 of the Pak (Admn : of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, any person claiming any right or interest in any property treated by the Custodian or a Rehabilitation Authority as evacuee property has to prefer his claim to the Custodian on the ground that the property is not evacuee property.
According to section 41 of the et Act, no Civil or Revenue Court or any other authority has a jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the. Custodian is empowered by or under the Act to determine. In view of these provisions, the Revenue Court cannot determine the question as to whether the property is or is not an evacuee property and as such the Board of Revenue has no Jurisdiction in the case. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed accordingly.