' This is a revision petition against the order of learned Additional and Settlement Commissioner (Land), Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was rejected.
2. Facts of the case are that the disputed land was released through schedule of 1966 and the petitioner recorded his full rate offer for it. The case being uncontested, the land in dispute was granted to the petitioner, with effect from Rabi 1968-69.
' The petitioner executed Kabuliat and obtained Ijazatnama. Being aggrieved of the above order of the C.
0., the respondent filed a review application to the C.
0., requesting to review the sanction order already accorded in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the land already stood allotted to the respondent in satisfaction of his claim. The C.
0. Referred the matter to the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, for passing revocation order in respect of the disputed land. The Additional Commissioner, vide his order, dated 21-8-1969 informed the C.
0. To review the order of his predecessor after hearing the parties, in exercise of power vested in him under section 163(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. Accordingly the C.
0. Heard the parties after the enquiry was completed by the A. R.
0. With regard to the ownership of S. No, 177 under dispute. The A. R.
0. Repotted that according to the entries made in the village Form VII vide Entry No, 304, the full rate grant of Mehoon was cancelled in the year 1942 and subsequently the same land was granted to Bhoorasingh by the Revenue Officer. In view of the above fact, the C. O. Heard the parties and revoked the sanction order made in favour of the petitioner. After the migration of the evacuee, the land was allotted to the respondent Sher Muhammad in satisfaction of his claim vide Khatooni, dated 30-10-1957. Being aggrieved by the above order of the C.O., the petitioner filed an appeal before the Learned Additional Commissioner, which was rejected. Hence this revision.
3. The Advocate for the petitioner mainly contends that after the grant was cancelled from the Khata of one Mehoon it was brought in Schedule of 1966 and granted to the petitioner from 1967-68. In case the land was evacuee property, it should have not come in the schedule.
4. The Advocate for the respondent on the other hand, contends that the land belongs to Bhoora Singh who has been treated as evacuee and, therefore, the land has rightly been allotted to the respondent in satisfaction of his claim. He further contends that after its allotment to the respondent, it has remained with him all along.
5. I have perused the record and find that the land under dispute viz. S. No, 177 is an evacuee property and has rightly been allotted in favour of the respondent in satisfaction of his claim. The plea taken by the Advocate for the petitioner that in case the land was evacuee property, it should not have been shown in the schedule for disposal. There are instances in which certain lands which were even Kabuli of the Zamindar/ Haris were shown by the Barrage authorities in schedule but subsequently such grants were cancelled. The mistake could be rectified at any stage. Therefore, the plea taken by the Advocate that the land should not have been shown in the schedule, and disposed of to the petitioner merits no consideration. There is no merit in the case and the revision is accordingly rejected.
Revision rejected.