' This is a Division Petition filed against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, Division, Hyderabad, dated 17-11-1982 rejecting the Appeal of the petitioner in respect of S. No, 530 area 1-33 acres of Deh Soonhar, Talukha Tando Bago.
2. The facts of the case are contained in the impugned order of the learned Additional Commissioner, and need not be reproduced.
3. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was granted an area of 12-10 acres from U. A. No, 188 of Deh Soonhar on permanent tenure on 17-8-1960 and such Ijazatnama was issued in his favour. He has produced photostat copy of the Ijazatnama. He further argued that S. Nos. 529 to 532 have been formed out of U. A. No, 188 and such Ghat Wadh form was issued; as such S. No, 530 was not available for disposal and the inclusion of this S. No, in schedule and subsequently its disposal is illegal. Photostat copy of Ghat Wadh form produced. The counsel for petitioner also contended that the grant is fully paid and in support of this he has produced a photo copy of 'A' form in respect of U. A. No, 188 in favour of the petitioner which proves that the grant is fully paid.
The counsel referred to page 91 of Sind Revenue Decision 1970 to 1980 wherein the then learned Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Sind (Mr. Hussani Kutib Ali Shah) has held that land included in Schedule by mistake and disposed of can be rectified at any stage.
5. The counsel for the respondent argued that the land in question was granted to his client in open Kutchery where the petitioner neither contested not' raised/filed any objection against this grant as such he has no cause of action. He also argued that the respondent is in possession of land and also cultivotes the same. In support of this he has produced photostat copy of Khasra Girdwari for the crucial year 1981-82.
6. From the evidence produced it is evident that S. No, 530 of Deh Soonhar, Taluka Tando Bago formed out of U. A. No, 188 is an old grant of the petitioner and the same was not available for disposal. As such its disposal by the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad was not proper and is void. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and cancel the grant of disputed land in favour of the respondent being a duplicate grant. Accordingly the Revision Petition, is allowed.