' This is a petition for review of the order dated 23-9-1975 passed by the then Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Sind, Hyderabad in respect of S. No, 209 of Deh Panchi Taluka Badin.
2. The petitioner was present with his counsel Mr. Bhimraj and the respondent was present with his counsel Mr. Habibullah on 6-12-1977. They were heard and the orders were reserved.
3. The disputed S. No, was originally granted to the respondent by Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad on Harap conditions. The S. No, was granted to the petitioner in appeal by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division on the ground that he had Mohag right over it. The respondent preferred a revision petition to the Board of Revenue, Sind which was upheld vide the impugned order.
4. The land has been granted to the petitioner by the learned Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, on Mohag right. According to para. 8(2) of the Land Grant Scheme, isolated pieces not exceeding 4 acres surrendered on all sides by Khatedar holding Kabuli land for at least 5 years prior to 1st July, 1970 could only be offered on Mohag right. In the present case the land surrounding the disputed land had been gifted to the petitioner by his father only on 24-12-1969. My learned predecessor, vide the impugned order, held that the holding of the respondent was not 5 years old and Mohag right had not, therefore, .Accrued to him. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the Mohag right was attached to the land and as the surrounding land was Kabuli, since more than 5 years, the disputed land could be claimed as Mohag of that land irrespective of the fact that the period for which land was held by the present Khatedar was not 5 years. The wordings of the para. 8 (2) are, however, quite clear that the Khatedar and not the holding should be 5 years old prior to 1-7- 1970. Besides, the disputed land is also not surrounded on all the four sides by the Kabuli holding and S. Nos. 306 and 339 on the eastern side, touching the disputed S. No, do not belong to the petitioner.
' For the above reasons, the impugned order is quite appropriate. There is no good ground for review and the review petition is, therefore, rejected.
Review petition rejected.