' This is a revision petition against the order, dated 16-11-1974 of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad in respect of S. Rs, 367 of Deh Chachri, Taluka Tanda Bago,
2. Mr. Habibullah Memon counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rustam Khan Talpur, counsel for the respondents are present. Mr. Nadir Ali, representative of the Revenue Officer is also present with record. The counsels have been heard and record perused.
3. The facts of the case are that the disputed S. Rs, was granted to the petitioner, S. Rs, 368 to respondent Devo, and S. Rs, 369 to respondent Janu in open Kutchery. Respondent Devo preferred an appeal against the grant of S. Nos. 367 and 369-He withdrew his appeal in respect of S. Rs, 369 and his appeal was upheld in respect of S. Rs, 367 vide the impugned order. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has submitted this revision petition.
4. The counsel for the petitioner has urged the following points :-
(i) The petitioner Premoon is the sitting tenant of the land and in its cultivating possession. He has been supplying the sugarcane crop of the land to Talhar Mill (documents produced). This was even confirmed in a settlement between the parties before Mukhtiarkar Tando Bago on 6-2-1974 (photo copy of the settlement produced).
(ii) The petitioner has been rendered landless while the grant of the respondent has been upgraded.
(iii) The land was granted to the parties in open Katchery according to a compromise.
5. The counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner had wrongly joined Jumoo and Misri as respondents in the case although they had no concern with the disputed land and therefore, the petition is not maintainable on account of misjoinder of the parties. He further contended that the land was on lease with the respondent during 19157-68 and 1968-69 and he is in its cultivating possession since last 15.16 years.
6. I have considered the case. Devo has already been granted S. Rs, 368 of the same Deh. The settlement, dated 6-2-1974 of the Mukhtiarkar Tando Bago, clearly shows that petitioner was in cultivating possession of the disputed S. Rs, The Additional Commissioner has ignored this settlement on the ground that Devo was not a party to this settlement but the photostat copy of the settlement shows that Devo was actually a party to the position taken in the impugned order in that respect is not, therefore, correct. The Katchery papers produced by Mr. Nadir show that the land was granted to Devo, Premoon and Janu with their consent as well as with the consent of the other contestants. Since the respondent had himself conceded to grant of the disputed land to the petitioner twice-first time before the Mukhtiarkar Tando Bago and second' time before the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad in Katchery, he had no cause for agitating against its grant to the petitioner, and his appeal in that respect was not, therefore, maintainable.
7. For the above reasons, the revision is upheld and grant in respect of S. Rs, 367 is restored to the petitioner.