' This is a revision petition against the order, dated 19-5-1971 passed by me whereby the revision petition of the respondent regarding alienation of an area of 39-34, 1/6 Acres of agricultural land in Deh Khan, Taluka Ghorabari, District Thatta, was accepted by me.
2. The facts of the case are contained in the impugned order and it is needless to repeat them here.
3. The counsel for the petitioner contended that according to circular letter, dated 5-11-1962 the West Pakistan, Land Commission the restrictions contained in para. 25 would not apply if all the joint co-sharers sell undivided shares but in the present case the petitioner having his individual exclusive and joint holding above economic holding, had only sold his share and as such his case was quite different from that quoted in the circular.
4. I have considered the case. The point urged by the counsels for the petitioner was considered at the time when the impugned order was passed. The main objective of para. 25 of the M. L. R. 64 has been to prevent fragmentation of holdings. The salient features of the scheme are as under :-
(a) The scheme has categorized two kinds of holding (i) economic holding and (ii) subsistence holding and it has been so framed as to prevent an economic holding as the case may be, from further fragmentation.
(b) Such holding are not allowed to sub-divided but the entire holding can he alienated.
(c) In case of holding which are less than subsistence holding, the owner can alienate any part of his holding to other owner of the same village, Deb or Mouza, so as to enable the later to consolidate his holding and upgrade it.
' These restrictions wete imposed to ensure better management and better agricultural production of the holding, and prevent the same from further fragmentation.
5. The West Pakistan Land Commission considered the question of alienation of joint-holding in their meeting held on 8th September, 1962 and it was decided, vide their Letter No, ASR-796- 62/5794-LC, dated 5-11-1962 that so long as the joint-holding contained to have the prescribed area of subsistence or economic holding, the provisions of paragraph 25 would not apply. These instructions were also issued to achieve the same objective with only this difference that here instead of individual holding a joint-holding is taken into consideration. Under these instructions, if the joint-holding is a subsistence holding or an economic holding it should not be by any alienation allowed to fall below the prescribed limit. The instructions of the Land Commissioner are quite clear and I do not see any force in the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner that his case is not covered by these instructions.
6. The petitioner has not agitated sufficient ground for the review of the order. Although there is no specific restriction laid down in rule 11 of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959, regarding the conditions in which review will be entertained but obviously the review cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of Harassment of the parties and unless there are compelling grounds, which if ignored will lead to any injustice, the review cannot be entertained. I do not see any reason to review .
Review petition rejected.