' This is an appeal against the order dated 6-2-1974 of the Additional Revenue Commissioner, Sind, in respect of an area of 16 Acres from U. A. No, 326 of Deh Phosna, Taluka Tando Bago.
2. The petitioner Abdul Haq is present with their counsel Mr. Bhimraj. The respondent is present with his counsel Mr. Ghulam Rasool Baloch. Munshi Muhammad Uris Barrage Tapedar and Munshi Arbab Ali Revenue Tapedar a,e present with their record. Mr. Nadir Ali representative of Revenue Officer, is also present. Those present have been heard and record perused.
3. The disputed land has been granted to the respondent vide the impugned order on the ground that he is landless Hari in cultivating possession of the land. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent was not present in Katchery and was not, therefore, eligible to grant of the land. He argues that the petitioner No, 1 had purchased Kabuli holding surrounding the disputed land from petitioner No, II and, therefore, he was entitled to its grant on Mohag right. He also contends that no notice had been served on them about the date of hearing before the Additional Revenue Commissioner, Hyderabad and, therefore, ex pane order was not proper. The counsel for respondent contends that the lands was on lease with him and he was in its cultivating possession and his grant is, therefore, quite proper.
4. The representative of Revenue Officer confirms that the respondent was not in the Katchery held for disposal of the land. His e1igibility to the grant of the land had not been scrutinized in open Katchery. Since he was not contestant in Katchery he had no cause for action against the grant and his appeal was not maintainable on this account. The grant of the land made to him in appeal was not, therefore, proper. As regards the petitioners the petitioner Abdul Sattar has since sold his Kabuli holdings and the petitioner Abdul Haq is a new-comer. The petitioner No, 1 has not been owner of the Kabuli holding for the prescribed period of 10 years prior to July, 1970 and he cannot, therefore, claim the grant of the disputed land on Mohag right.
' For the above reasons, the grant made to the respondent is also set aside. The land should be disposed of afresh according to the provisions of New Land Grant Policy. The revision petition is upheld to this extent.