' These are two reviews from the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, passed on 13-1- 1970 whereby the revision filed by Mst. Akhtarunnisa and Mir Muhammad Shah were rejected.
2. The main two points that have been raised by Mr. Iqbal Ahmed Siddiqui are that he filed an affidavit of one Sultan son of Allah Bachayo who has stated that deceased Mamoon was not a Hari.
He has also referred me to a ruling of 1963 of Mr. A. M. Khan Leghari, C. S. P., learned M. B. R. Wherein it has been held that Haries and small Khatedars should not be given land lest than 2 Acres.
3. As regards petitioner Mir Muhammad Shah, he has reiterated the same points that he had raised before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, in revision.
4. Jan Muhammad, the brother of the deceased Mamoon, contends that Muhammad Shah is a Kamdar of Mr. Lqbal Ahmad Siddiqui's wife. While Mir Muhammad denies it. However, he admits that he is Hari of the petitioner Mr. Faiz Muhammad Abbasi, Advocate for the respondent, contends that review petition is time barred by 3 days because originally the order was passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue. On 30-1-1970. Application for copy of order was made on 20-1- 1970 while copy was supplied on 3-2-1970. As there are 29 days in the month of February, the review petition is just within time. The Advocate has further contended that Mamoon applied for this land in an open Kutchery and the petitioner did not apply for the same. The affidavit produced by the petitioner should not accepted, now as in that way any number of counter affidavits can be produced by him in support of his contention that Mamoon was a Hari. As regards ruling, he contends that it will be applicable to Sukkur Barrage, and not to the G. M. Barrage, Area where there are hundreds of cases where land below 12 Acres has been granted to the Hairis.
5. After hearing the arguments of the parties, I find that the land was granted to the deceased Mamoon in the open Kutchery and the appeal and revision filed were rejected. The learned M. B. R.
Has passed elaborate order justifying the grant in favour of the deceased Mamoon. So far affidavit is concerned. I agree with the Advocate for the respondent that counter-affidavits can be filed at any stage. However, there was nothing to prevent the petitioner from filing affidavit in the lower Courts or even in the Court of the learned M. B. R. So far ruling is concerned, it is applicable to Sukkur Barrage and will not be applicable to the G. M. Barrage where land below 12 Acres has been granted to Haris in numerous cases. Assuming for the sake of argument that the contention of the petitioner is correct, then also the petitioner cannot get this land RS she had become owner of the land in 1959, whereas Mohag right is to A be considered only if the land was owned by her 10 years prior to 1957, as rightly held by the learned Member, Board of Revenue. In view of these facts, I find no reason to interfere with the orders of the learned M. B. R. And the review petition is rejected.
6. This also disposes of the review petition filed by Mir Muhammad Shah v. Jan Muhammad, R.
0. R. No, 173 of 1969-70.
Petition rejected.