' This is a revision against the order of the learned Revenue Officer passed on 7-10-1965 in pursuance of the order of the Project Director allowing exchange of land in favour of the respondent.
2. Facts briefly are that from Kharif 1962-63 S. Nos. 32, 33 and 22, 23 of Deh Taluka Badin were granted to the respondent under the Tribesmen's scneme vide A Form Nos. 2161 and 1299, respectively. The respondent then applied to the D. C., Kalat for exchange of the land on the ground that the land could not be developed even by the Machinery. As a result thereof the Project Director allowed the exchange of the S. Nos. Which are now under revision.
3. Mr. Ali Murad. Khemtio, Advocate for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is in possession of the land. He has shown me a copy of Khasra Girdwari where name of the petitioner is shown as having cultivated some area of 64 Acres as Hari during the years 1968-69 to 1970-71 whereas in the year 1967-68 it is the respondent Noor Muhammad who is shown as cultivator of this land which was granted to him out of quota reserved for Tribesmen. He has also argued that the land which was given in exchange is from the quota allocated from Mangla Dam displaced persons and therefore the Project Director was not competent to allow this land in exchange. He also argued that this land is within 20 chains of an established village. The Project Director, according to him is competent to allow exchange within 32 years while he has allowed exchange in this case beyond that period.
4. The Advocate for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the Revenue Officer, passed orders in pursuance of the directions of the Project Director on 7-10-1965. The revision has been filed on 22-4-1971 i. e. Nearly after 51 years. Therefore this revision is hopelessly time-barred. The A form shows that the respondent has paid instalments in 1969 because during the previous years there was Tax holiday etc. So far as the contention of the Advocate that the exchange has not been allowed by the Project Director within 2 years the Advocate for the respondent contends that the original application has been made in 1962 for this exchange. If the Project Director took more time to allow the exchange, the respondent could not be punished. So far existence of the village is concerned, there is nothing on record except that a square has been drawn by pencil.
As far the first point about limitation period is concerned, I find that the original order was passed in October 1965. In 1969 even instalment has been paid by the respondent and the Khasra Girdwari produced by the petitioner also shows that the respondent has himself cultivated this land during 1967768. This clearly shows that he was also in possession of this land. Subsequently, possibly he might have allowed the petitioner to cultivate the land as a Hari. Obviously therefore, the revision petition which is supposed to be filed within 90 days, has been filed after more than 5 years and thus hopelessly time-barred.
' So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the appeal Mukhtiarkar, who is present, informs that the land given in exchange is also under the allocation from the quota of Tribesmen and therefore, there was nothing wrong in allowing the exchange by the Project Director. Assuming for arguments sake that this land was from Mangla Dam allocation, even then it was not to go to the petitioner because it has been given away in 1964 much before the allocation has been done away with. So far existence of the village is concerned, there is only one square drawn by pencil which is not enough to prove the existence of the village. The respondent applied for exchange after the land was granted to him within a period of 2 years from the date of its grant therefore his request is within time. The plea taken by the Advocate for the petitioner that the Project Director has wrongly allowed exchange after a period of 2 years is not correct. The petitioner admits that he has not paid land revenue for the land that he has cultivated. He also admits that he has not been penalized for unauthorized cultivation. Since the land has been granted under Tribesmen scheme to the respondent in 1965, the petitioner has no locus standi and the revision petition is rejected both on the point of limitation and on merits. However, after new lands are thrown open, his case may be considered by the Revenue Officer for grant of land on merits.
Revision rejected.