1. ' The facts briefly are that the Deputy Colonization Officer, Left Bank, Khalifo Kassim granted Survey Nos, 327, 328, 332, 335, 348 and 16 of Deh Adhori, Taluka Tando Bago, admeasuring 27-35 Acres to the respondent on 4-4-1964 on harap conditions. Against this grant the appellant filed appeal in the Court of Director, G. M. B. Project.
2. Hyderabad on 15-3-1967, which was rejected under the order passed on 7-2-1968. The appellant then filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. The learned Member (L. U & Con.), Board of Revenue, West Pakistan (Mr. S. Afzal Agha) under his orders passed on 10-12-1968, remanded the case to the Director, G. M. B., Project, Hyderabad, with the observations given below :- "There was a specific prescribed procedure for disposal of lands falling within 20 chains of village sites previously and at present in accordance with the Board of Revenue's order No, 1156-66/1758- P-III, dated 30-11-1966, there is a total ban on disposal of such lands. The aspect of the case requires to be enquired into and no plea of limitation, however, strong can be allowed to rectify a violation of prescribed rules having the force of law."
3. ' In pursuance thereof the learned Director heard the parties and ordered that these Survey numbers under dispute were not included in the schedule of Hans and Mohagdars and Survey Nos.
4. 16 and 335 were within 20 chains of village Qaim; hence the grant was illegal. He, therefore, upheld the appeal of the respondent with a direction that the entire disputed land so made available should be disposed of afresh as per law, after observing all the formalities.
5. ' I have heard the petitioner. He contends that he has been cultivating some of the Survey Nos. He has, however, failed to produce any proof that it: has been cultivating any of these Survey Nos. The perusal of the sketch al-o shows that Survey Nos. 16, 335 and 332 are within 20 chains of village Qaim. Therefore, the grant of these Survey Nos. Without consulting the villagers was not proper.
6. Moreover, it is clear that the disputed Survey No,
3. Were not included in the schedule of Haris and Mohagdars. The Appeal Mukhtiarkar, G. M. B., Hyderabad, admits that the land was not originally disposed of after proper publicity or in the open Katchery. Obviously therefore, the disposal of land by the Barrage authorities was wrong and illegal ab initio. The Director has, therefore, rightly upheld the appeal of the respondent and directed that the land may be disposed of afresh in accordance with the existing orders. In view of these facts the revision is dismissed.