' This is a revision petition against the order, dated 26-2-1970 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad (Mr. Kutib Ali Shah Hussaini) whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondent Haji Arif regarding mutation in Record of Right in respect of 0-4-3 5/9 share in serial No, 23 of Deh Mundhawai Taluka Mitbi.
2. The facts of the case are that the disputed share in the survey number was purchased by Haji Arif vide a mutation statement dated 28-7-1965, before the Mukhtiarkar and the Record of Rights was changed accordingly. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the mutation to the Deputy Collector on the following three grounds:
(i) The mutation agreement was not attested by the Mukhtiarkar in presence of the original Khatedars.
(ii) The alienation was not by a registered document, and
(iii) There was infringement of the provisions of M. L. R. 64-A as the area under alienation was below subsistence holding and the alienee had no other land in the Deh as required by sub-para. (4) of para. 25 of M. L. R.
64.
' The Deputy Collector rejected his Ground Nos. (i) and (ii) but accepted the Ground No, (iii) and set aside the mutation vide his order, dated 18-10-1967. Haji Arif preferred an appeal, which was accepted by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad vide the impugned order mainly on the ground that there was no infringement of M. L. R. 64 as the alienors had sold their entire holdings in the Deh. The Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, has, however, further directed that the share of the parties in S. No, 23 may be partitioned to end dispute between them.
3. I heard the parties on 20-4-1971 and also heard them to day. The impugned order was passed on 26-2-1970 and the revision petition has been filed on 4-6-1970 i. e. After lapse of 97 days. One day has been taken in issue of copy and excluding the day, the petition is prima facie time-barred by 6 days. The contention of the petitioner has been that he was not served with a notice and that he was not a party before the Additional Commissioner and as such his revision petition is not time- barred because he had no knowledge of the order. The Additional Commissioner, has stated in the impugned order that Muhammad Ramzan was present so he had full knowledge as to what was going on and the order of the Additional Commissioner cannot be called ex parte order. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that Muhammad Ramzan never appeared before the Additional Commissioner, and someone might have impersonated him. If that be so then the proper remedy available to the petitioner was to seek a review of the order of the Additional Commissioner and get the mistake rectified as the mistake was apparent from record and was primarily rectifiable in review but the petitioner did not consider it advisable to do so and his plea that Muhammad Ramzan never appeared before the Additional Commissioner, loses all weight and cannot, therefore, be given any Consideration. The fact remains that even though the petitioner knew of the order, he came in the revision 6 days after the lapse of time allowed for revision petition and the revision petition is, therefore, time-barred and is rejected.
4. The area of Survey No, 23 is less than subsistence holding and the partition of Survey No, is barred by para. 23 of Land Reforms Regulation, 1959. The Survey number cannot, therefore, be partitioned. This position has been conceded to by the counsel for the respondents. In exercise of the suo motu jurisdiction vested in me under section 164, of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, I further direct that the order dated 26-2-1970 of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, may be amended to the extent that the partition of the survey number should not be made so long as it is in contravention of provisions of para. 23 of the Land Reform Regulation, 1959.
Revision petition rejected.