' This is a revision petition against the order, dated 5-3.69 of the learned Director, G. M. B. Project, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was rejected.
2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner gave an offer for S. Nos. 298, 299 and an area of about 4- 0 acres from U. A. No, 204 of Deb Wahryaro, Taluka Badir on 1-5-1961. The respondent also recorded his offer for an area of 4-0 acres from U. A. No, 204 only. The offer of the petitioner was returned by the R.
0. With the remarks that the petitioner held no land on his Khata and that his wife was a Khatedar and she might give offer if she so desired. The petitioner Syed Ali Shah gave statement withdrawing from his offer and recorded offer on behalf of his wife on 2-9-1961. Meanwhile, one Nazar Muhammad filed an appeal against the grant of the petitioner which was recorded by the Project Director. The petitioner Syed Ali Shah made an application before the R. O. That his offer may be sanctioned. The R.
0. Forwarded his application to the Barrage Mukhtiarkar with the directions that his offer might be submitted and in case his offer was not available on record, duplicate record should be prepared.
The application was produced by the petitioner before the Barrage Mukhtiarkar on 7-4-1965. The B.
M. On the strength of this endorsement of the R.
0. Recorded the offer of the wife of the petitioner on 10-4-1965. The offer was rejected by the Revenue Officer on 16-1-1966 on the ground that the area of 4.0 Acres requested by the petitioner was already disposed of to Noor Muhammad and that S. Nos. 298 and 299 were not in the Mohag of his Kabuli land. Being aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Director G. M. B. Project which was rejected. Hence this revision.
3. The Advocate for the petitioner mainly contends that the petitioner had recorded offer for the disputed area but he had to withdraw in favour of his wife and record fresh offer because he had no other land and, therefore, according to the instructions then existing, he could not get this isolated piece of land. His wife being already a small Khatedar could be granted this land to upgrade her holding. Admittedly the petitioner had P. K. M. Right over the disputed land because he was taking this land but because of this difficulty, he had no way-out but to record offer in the name of the wife whose power-of-attorney he was holding. In addition he had also recorded offer for S. Nos. 298 and 299 which offer was even accepted by the Colonization Officer, but then subsequently the papers were miss aced and no Ijazatnama has been issued. The petitioner has, therefore, been hit on both sides, i. e., on one hand two S. Nos. 298 and 299 against which there is no appeal and which stand granted to him as per entry in the revenue record but no Ijazatnama has been issued to him and so far as disputed portion is concerned, he is losing his right because he could not get it as he had no other land.
4. The Advocate for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner withdrew from his offer in the name of his wife so far as disputed piece of 4-0 Acres is concerned. Therefore, he has relinquished his P. K. M. Right which is not transferable according to law, and, therefore, the land has rightly been granted to the respondent. So far as S. Nos. 298 and 299 are concerned, he contends that he has absolutely no objection if these two S. Nos. Are allowed to the petitioner because even the respondent did not file appeal for these two S. Nos.
5. After going through the record and hearing the arguments, I find that the wife of the petitioner has already been granted some land in satisfaction of her Mohag right. The P. K. M. Right is not transferable and moreover upsetting the grant after so many years will not be desirable. In view of these facts, I, reject the revision so far as disputed piece is A concerned. So far as S. Nos. 298 and 299 are concerned, it appears that great injustice has been done to the petitioner. Papers have been deliberately misplaced despite the fact that there is ample evidence on record to indicate that they have been sanctioned but no Ijazatnama has been issued. In view of these facts, I direct that Ijazatnama in respect of these two S. Nos. May be issued in favour of the petitioner.