' This is a review petition against the order, dated 4-4-1973 passed by the Additional Member (Hussaini Kutib Ali Shah) whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioners in respect of S. Rs, 389 area 10-16 Acres of Deh Lundki, Taluka Badin granted to the respondent.
2. The facts of the case are already given in the impugned order and need not be reproduced.
3. The counsel for the petitioners mainly urged the following points :-
(a) S. Rs, 389 area 10-16 Acres of Deh Lundki Taluka Badin is situated within 20 chains of sanctioned village Baqadar Shah and according to Old Land Grant Policy the land within 20 chains could only be disposed of and granted when the villagers are consulted and that there is no possibility of extension of the village. In the present case necessary formalities were not observed by the Barrage authorities while granting the land to the respondent.
(b) The respondent to whom the disputed land has been granted is a big Zamindar having land about 80 Acres in his own Khatas in Talukas Badin, Digri and Matli. In addition to above he has also to inherit certain land from one Abdullah Shah a big Zamindar who has died issueless leaving the respondent and others as his legal heirs.
(c) The policy provides that a small Kbatedar in Kotri Barrage could only get land up to the limit 32 Acres including his Kabuli holdings. In the present case the respondent is neither a small Khatedar nor a peasant and as such was not entitled for grant of the disputed land.
(d) The disputed land was not disposed of in open Katchery and no wide publicity as required by the policy was made for disposal of the land. The petitioners had applied for grant of the disputed land in 1959 as peasant but their request was being turned down on the ground that the disputed land is situated within 20 chains of sanctioned village.
4. The counsel quoted PLD 1962 Lah. 292 wherein it was held that if the land has not been disposed of after releasing it through the schedule the disposal is void. He also quoted PLD 1969 Lah. 1039, PLD 1970 Lah. 7 regarding time limitation i.e., the time limitation will run from the date of knowledge and not from the date of grant of the land in favour of the respondent which was made secretly.
The petitioner came to know about the disposal of the land on 27-1-1971 when the Settlement Mukhtiarkar issued a notice for vacation of the possession.
5. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand mainly contends that order, dated 4-4-1974 of the A.M.B.R. (Mr. Hussain Kutib Ali Shah) is self-explanatory and it requires no further comments. He further contends that section 8 (1) of B.O.R. Act clearly provides that a review petition can only be entertained when there are new and important matters which were not discussed at the time of hearing of original appeal. In the present case no such new and important ground has been adduced.
6. I have given due consideration to the arguments put forth by the counsel of the parties and have also gone through the relevant record produced by the counsels of the parties as well as the Tapedar of Taluka Badin. I have also benefit of written arguments furnished by the counsels of the parties. From the perusal of Deh map it is observed that S. Rs, 389 area 10-16 Acres of Deh Lundki Taluka Badin is situated within 20 chains of a sanctioned village Baqadar Shah and according to the policy A it could have only been disposed of and granted after the consultation of villagers and when there is no possibility of extension of the village. But in the present case it appears that the land in dispute was granted to the respondent by the Barrage authorities secretly without observing the formalities as required by old Land Grant Policy. From perusal of case papers as well as the revenue record it transpires that the respondent is a big Zamindar having land about 80 Acres in several Talukas in his name and he has been granted land on Harap tenure instead of full rate condition for which he was not eligible.
7. In view of the above legal position, the review petition is upheld and the order, dated 4-4-1973 passed by Additional Member (Hussaini Kutib Ali Shah) is modified. The case is remanded to Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, for fresh decision on merits under the Old Land Grant Policy.
Review accepted.