' This is a revision petition against the order, dated 28-5-1969 of the learned Director, G. M. B., Project, Hyderaoad, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected both on merits as well as on point of limitation.
2. The facts of the case, as given in the impugned order are that in the land sale register the area of U. A. No, 186 of Deh Doomar, Taluka Tando Bago, was shown as 83-5 Acres, out of this area, an area of 56-26 Acres was granted to the respondent Jumo and others as under. {{TABLE}} 17 Name of grantee Area Actual Less Excess Year of granted. Area on Area. Area. Grant. The site according to scale measurement in possession of the grantee #TBS acres lumo sio Mevo 10-4 24-2 13-18 1960-61; #TBE 2.
3. #TBS
4. 1962-63
5. 1962-63
6. 1960-61
7. #TBE
8. Hashim sio 8-7 5-20 1-20 Khamiso.
9. Bago s/o Usman. 16-0 14-20 1-20 4, Ahmed s/o Ali 22-15 18-5 4-10 Muhammad.
56-26 8-17 13-38 {{TABLE}} ' Out of the remaining area available for sale the Revenue Officer, G. M. B. Project, granted an area of 16 Acres provisionally to respondent Allahdino on Harap condition, on 12-7-1967 in open Kutchery.
3. Subsequently, the Barrage Mukhtiarkar, Tando Bago, at the time of submitting the offer of the respondent Allahdino for sanction to the Revenue Officer pointed out that after visit of site and conducting measurement of the land only 6 Acres were available for disposal to the respondent as against an area of 16 Acres provisionally granted to him. In view of the facts reported by the Revenue Officer G. M. B. Project an area of 6 Acres was sanctioned in favour of the respondent, on 20-11-1967 from Kharif 1967-68. Being dissatisfied with the order of the Revenue Officer G. M. B.
Project the petitioner filed an appeal to the Director, G. M. B. Project. Simultaneously, the respondent Jumo made an application to the Revenue Officer, requeting for cancellation of the grant of the respondent Allahdino as according to him the piece of 6 Acres granted to Allahdino was within the sanction sketch of grant of 10-4 Acres already granted to him from the year 1960-61, with the result that the grant of Allahdino was cancelled by the Revenue Officer, on 11-1-1968.
10. Later on the parties arrived at mutual agreement according to which the Revenue Officer, vide his order, dated 9-5-1968 excluded 6 Acres of land out of the grant of the respondent Jumo and granted the same to respondent Allahdino. Being aggrieved by the order, dated 9-5-1968 passed by the Revenue Officer Ahmed and Jumo filed a joint appeal, on 8-10-1968 before the Project Director who rejected the appeal both on merits and on limitation; hence this revision.
11. The Advocate for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was granted land much before it was sanctioned to the other respondents, and there re, the first grant should prevail.
12. The Advocate for the respondents contends that due to overlapping in the sanctioned sketch this discrepency had arrived and that the petitioner should not get benefit of that.
13. I have perused the impugned order of the learned Director, G. M. B. Project and have heard the arguments of the Learned Advocates. The grant made to Ahmad is prior to that of Jumo and, therefore, definitely he is entitled to grant of 6 Acres of land from the land subsequently granted to Jumo as according to the standing orders, in force, the first grant is to prevail and the second grant thereafter, is liable for cancellation. The respondent Jumo contends that he has got his house and mango trees on th land granted to him. If it is so that portion of land should remain with the respondent Jumo. The orders of the lower Courts are modified to that extent.