' This is a petition for review of the order dated 30-6-1977, passed by my learned predecessor in respect of grant of an area of 64 acres from U. A. No, 6 of Deh Soharki, Taluka Tando Muhammad Khan.
2. The petitioners are present with their counsel, Mr. Bhimraj. The attorney of respondent is present with his counsel Mr. G. M. Tehirani, Munshi, Gul Muhammad Tapedar is present with record. The counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused.
3. The facts of the case are that the disputed land stood granted to respondent under mechanized farming scheme. His grant was cancelled by the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad vide his order dated 17-6-1975 on the ground that he had failed to cultivate the land and he was not present on site. He preferred an appeal and the same was remanded by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad to Revenue Officer, K. B. Hyderabad for passing fresh orders.
Consequently Revenue Officer, K. B. Hyderabad restored the grant of the respondent. The petitioners preferred an appeal against that order and the same was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad vide his order dated 12-2-1977. His revision petition was rejected by my learned predecessor vide the impugned order.
4. The counsel for the petitioners contends that the grantee had infringed conditions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, 16 (2) and 19 (i) of the grant and that the grant was liable to cancellation. He further contends that he had raised these points in the revision petition but there is no finding in respect of these contentions except condition No, 19 (2). He states that the petitioners have their houses in the disputed land and were in its cultivating possession, and they would be benefitted by cancellation of the grant.
5. I have considered the case. The scope of a review petition quite limited and the opportunity cannot be availed of for re-agitating the entire case. The points raised by the counsel for the petitioner, cannot therefore, be made the subject-matter of a review petition. Besides, the order passed by my learned predecessor as well as the two concurrent findings of the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage and Additional Commissioner, Hydera bad indicate that there is no infringement of any conditions of the grant. In any case, the counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out a case for cancellation of the grant on the ground of any infringement of the conditions of the grant.
The representative of the Revenue Officer, states that according to condition No, 3 of the grant it is not mandatory that t grantee must maintain the tractor of his own and as regards conditions Nos.
4 and 5 he states that there was postponement of recovery of installments from time to time and the grant of the respondent was not, therefore., liable to cancellation on these account. The conditions Nos. 14 and 15 require plantation of trees, and maintenance of cow and buffalo, four sheep for the land. The counsel for the petitioner is not able to sub stantiate his contention that the grantee had not complied with these conditions. It is also not possible to verify at this stage whether the grantee had complied with these conditions. Besides, in the circumstances of the case, there is hardly any justification to cancel the grant on these grounds. As regards condition No, 16 (2) requiring residence at the land and condition No, 19 (i) prescribing percentage of cultivation, there are specific findings in the impugned order, that the attorney of the respondent had built the house and developed the land.
' In view of this position, there is no good ground for review and the review petition is, therefore, rejected.
Review petition rejected.