' This is a petition for review of my order, dated 9-1-1978, rejecting the revision petition of the petitioner against the grant of S. Nos. 21,12 and 211 of Deh Keti, Taluka Hala to the respondent on Harap conditions.
2. Heard the counsels for the parties at length and the relevant record seen on 5-11-1978 when the orders were reserved. There are sufficient reasons for review of my impugned order, dated 9-1-1978 as discussed infra.
(1) The petitioner is a bona fide resident of Deh Keti as per electoral roll of LliC Tajpur at SI. Rs, 355 of 1975. Munshi Fakir Muhammad, S. T. Had reported in his report referred to in the impugned order that the petitioner is resident of Deh Soomra as well as he is Hari of S. Nos. 86, 87 and 88 of that Deh Soomra. This Deh Soomra is adjacent to the disputed land in Doh Keti It goes to establish that the petitioner is a landless Hari residing permanently in Deh Keti or Deh Soomra (adjacent Deh).
(ii) The petitioner has been agitating for the grant of the disputed land eversince it was disposed of to respondent on lease for five years which was later on cancelled on the ground that it was disposed of without publicity.
(iii) It has been alleged that the brother of respondent is a Tapedar and on this account the respondent is being favoured by the village staff in making entries in the record showing him as a Hari.
(iv) The disputed land was disposed of by the C.
0. In open Katchery held on 21-3-1977 on permanent tenure on the basis of Harap right to the respondent whereas there was no other aspirant except the petitioner only. This shows that in case the respondent was not found to be eligible for the grant the preference would have been in favour of the petitioner.
3. In view of these reasons I have thoroughly examined the record and find that (a) the respondent Muhammad Juman inherited 50 Paisas share from his deceased mother Mst. Nural Bai out of her holding of 13-32 Acres in Deh Keti vide entry Rs, 30 in Dakhil Kharij Register on 2-6-1975 which come to 6-36 Acres in his share. (b) During the subsistence of this holding he was granted the disputed land (12-24) Acres on lease for five years on 22-9-1975 making his total holding to 19-20 Acres which exceeded the ceiling of 16-0 Acres in violation of the terms and conditions of the Land Grant Policy. (c) The respondent subsequently gifted his inherited holding 6-36 Acres to his wife Mst. Allah Bachai vide entry Rs, 37, dated 20-10-1975. Obviously this trick was practised by the respondent to render himself as landless and to qualify for the grant of the land within the purview of land grant policy. (d) The respondent Muhammad Juman obtained Identity Card CA 123343 as late as 12-8- 1978 showing his place of residence as Goth and Deh Keti. I understand that there is no Goth by name Keti and apparently it was done to rebut the allegation that he is resident of Matiari.
4. In the light of the foregoing facts, I am fully convinced that the respondent Muhammad Juman was not eligible for the grant of lease of the disputed land in the first instance as his holding exceeded 16-0 Acres. The subsequent grant of the same to him was also not justified as he has retained his holding in the name of his wife who may be treated as an independent entity, but the transaction of gift was not free from mala fide intention to show himself to be a landless Hari, whereas he was a small Khatedar and not a Hari.
5. I, therefore, in exercise of my powers under section 8 of the B.O.R. Act, 1957, review my impugned order as under : The grant of the disputed land to the respondent is hereby revoked and the same is granted to the petitioner Sulleman Sanwalo.
6. The review petition is upheld accordingly.
Review .