' The facts briefly are that somewhere in 1962 Pai land adjoining S. Nos. 82/1, 4 and others was thrown open for disposal after obtaining. No Objection Certificate from the Irrigation Department.
One Mst. Hajra was granted this land in 1962. The respondents went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner which was allowed and the case was remanded on the ground that proper publicity should be made and then the land should be disposed of. In pursuance thereof proper publicity was made and certificates were obtained from the Deputy Commissioner, Nawab Shah on 27-7- 1966 from Chairman, Union Council on 13-7-1966 and from Assistant Commissioner on 14-7-1966 and the land was disposed of. The Colonization Officer, after hearing the parties ordered on 13-4- 1967 that the land should be put to restricted auction among the officers. Against that the respondent went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner who by the order, dated 5-4-1968 set aside the order of the Colonization Officer and granted the land to the respondents as shown in the impugned order. Kamdar Khan and Mirza Jawad Hussain filed revisions against that impugned order on 8-10-1970.,
2. Mr. Kazi Muhammad Saleh, Advocate for the petitioner Jawad Hussain, contends that this revision is maintainable under law and the period of 30 months can be condoned as the petitioner is an interested person as he has got S. Nos. 91/1, 498/4 and 106/1, 2 from which S. Nos. He can validly claim Mohag right. He was granted this land in claim in 1959 and therefore, he is an interested party and should have been considered for the purpose of grant of this disputed land.
3. As against that the Advocate for the respondents contends that right from 1962 to 1970, the petitioner rammed silent despite the fact that the matter was being agitated at various stages in various Courts. The impugned order was passed in April 1968 and the revision has been filed by the petitioner after 30 months i. e., in October 1970. The petitioner was not a party to the impugned order in the lower Courts. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination and under any law, he could be allowed to be a party. If he was really interested in the land, he should have applied for it long before when the land was being disposed of by the Colonization Officer, Sukkur Barrage after due publicity. Assuming for the sake of arguments that he is interested, even then he cannot have any Mohag right because there is intervening road of 40 ft. Which separates land from the disputed S. No, Moreover, he has no judicial Mohag right which should be 10 years prior to June, 1957. In view of these facts his case cannot be considered both on point of law as well as on facts. The Advocate for the respondents contends that the road is under cultivation by the petitioner and, therefore, penal action may be taken. The Tapedar who is present in the Court also confirms this position.
4. So far petitioner Kam:Jar Khan is concerned, he contends that he has got S. Nos. 83, 84 and 85 which he owned from 194/. The Tapedar has produced record before me which shows that the record has be' mutated in his favour a few months back. Even the mutation order produced by the petitioner shows that he was granted land in April, 1971. Therefore, obviously, he has no judicial Mohag right and moreover w hole matter stands closed before the land was granted to the respondent.
5. After going through the record and hearing the Advocate for the parties at length 1 am convinced that the revisions are not maintainable both on point of law as well as on facts because the petitioners have not applied for this land from 1962 down to 1970. Even after the impugned order was passed, they remained silent for 22 years. Even otherwise their right is cut off by a road 40 Ft. Wide. Therefore, both the revisions are rejected both on point of law as well as on facts. Since the road is under cultivation penal action should be taken against unauthorized encroachment for the years from which it has been brought under cultivation.
Revision rejected: