1. ' This is a revision against the order of Project Director, G. M. B., Hyderabad passed on 27-6-1969 in an appeal from the order of Revenue Officer, G. M. B., Hyderabad, directing that Survey Nos. 355/4 ; 356/4; 409/2 and 410/1, 4 of Deh Gujhri, Taluka Tando Muhammad Khan should be ex luded from the grant of petitioner Jumo and granted to the respondent Shafi Muhammad.
2. ' Facts of the case briefly are that Survey Nos. 355/4; 356/4; 309/2 and 410/1, 4 of Deh Gujhri were originally granted to the petitioner by the Revenue Officer G. M. B., Hyderabad on Harap tenure from Kharif 1968-69 overruling the offer of the respondent for grant of Survey Nos. 409/2 and 410/1,
4. The respondent went in appeal before the Project Director, G. M. B., Hyderabad who accepted his apical and ordered that the Survey Nos. In dispute be excluded from the grant of the petitioner and granted to the respondent. Being aggrieved by this decision of the Project Director, the petitioner has filed this revision.
3. ' The case was first argued on 22-10-1970 when both the parties were present with their Advocates.
4. On that date the Advocate for the petitioner pointed out that the man present in the Court as respondent was not Shafi Muhammad, but he was Muhammad Yousif. He contended that Shafi Muhammad was a boy of tender age who should be called before the Court. The other party contended that the person present in Court was Shafi Muhammad. Accordingly the matter was referred to the Assistant Commissioner, Tando Muhammad Khan, for enquiry and report about the identity of the respondent.
5. ' The case is again taken up today i. e. 24-11-1970. The report received from the Assistant Commissioner, Tando Muhammad Khan has been perused and arguments of the Advocates heard.
6. ' The Advocate for the petitioner contended that the person produced Board of Revenue) REV. 129 before the Court on the last date of hearing was Yousif son of Muhammad Urs who had impersonated himself as Shafi Muhammad. In fact Shafi Muhammad is a minor boy aged about 4 years and as such he is not entitled to the grant of land and the Harap grant made to him is a fraud on Government. As regards the withdrawal statement of petitioner Jumo surrendering the Survey Nos. In dispute in favour of the respondent, the Advocate contended that Jumo was not competent to withdraw as it was against law and that the withdrawal statement said to have been given by Jumo was not signed by Jumo but it was signed by someone else through imper sonation.
7. ' The Advocate for the respondent contended that the petitioner Jumo did not raise any objection before the lower Court about the age of Shafi Muhammad. On the contrary he had surrendered his grant in favour of Shafi Muhammad by way of compromise. He further argued that the question of age being an afterthought could not be considered at the revisional stage and that the enquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner, Tando Muhammad Khan as regards the identity of respondent Shafi Muhammad was not proper as the respondent was not allowed any chance to cross-examine the persons deposing against him.
8. After hearing the arguments of both sides and going through the report of Assistant Commissioner, Tando, I am convinced that all along Yousif has been produced in Court in place of Shafi Muhammad. The Assistant .Commissioner has examined the Taluka Headmaster by confronting him with the photograph produced in the Court by the respondent. The Head A master has identified the man on photograph as Yousif as he was some time his student in the Primary School.
9. The Headmaster has made such note below the photograph of the respondent. In view of these facts, I set aside the order of the Project Director and remand the papers to him for fresh decision, in the matter. He should ensure that proper man is produced in his Court and then take decision on merit.