' The facts briefly are that the respondent Gul Beg and others were granted land in Dhoronare, Taluka Tando Bago. Against their grant the petitioner filed an appeal for S. Nos. Which was rejected by the Project Director, G. M. Barrage. Against that order they filed a revision with the Member, Board of Revenue who decided as under :- ' Heard the petitioners. They mainly contended that. S. No, 267 was in their possession and it contained their houses and water pond etc. I have seen the records. The land was disposed of in an open auction by the Revenue Officer concerned. Whether dwellings, water pond or other constructions exist on the disputed S. No, is a question of fact and if it is a fact then obviously the petitioners should not be disturbed to that extent alone but in case possession has since been delivered houses etc. Removed or non-existent the present petition must fail.
' In pursuance of the decision of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, the learned Project Director heard the parties and again rejected their appeal on the ground that the houses of the petitioners and other were situated on the boundary of Village Juman Khoso and not in S. No, 267 as reported by the Barrage Mukhtiarkar. It is against that order of the learned Project Director that they filed this revision.
2. As there was contradiction between reports of two Barrage Mukhtiarkars, the Assistant Commissioner, Badin was directed by this Court to personally visit the site and report. Kie has seen the site and submitted his report that 5 huts of Ahmed and others are situated in S.
267. There is tank also in S. No, 268. He has also reported that these huts appear to be 10 to 12 years old. The learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the respondents were not residents of this Deli no were they residents of the adjoining village Juman Khoso. On the other hand, the petitioners are residents of this village. Moreover, the report of the Assistant Commissioner clearly shows that there are some huts in about half of the portion of S. No, 267 and also a tank in S. No,
268. Therefore, it will be unjust if these huts are demolished, As against that the learned Advocate for the respondent contends that the report of the Assistant Commissioner clearly shows that none of the petitioners has any huts in S. No, 267. Therefore, they have no locus stand!.
3. After hearing the parties and going through the record. I find that at the time of grant of this land no consent statement of the villagers of adjoining village Juman Khoso was recorded. On the contrary, some of the residents objected to the grant of this land. Since these huts are very near to village Juman Khoso and that there is one tank which serves the villagers and that it is now reported in this Court that one mosque has also been constructed, it will not be fair and proper if these huts are demolished because they will be conveniently used for extension of the village. The position being such, I allow the appeal to the extent that about 2 or 21 Acres land within which these huts are situated may be reserved for extension of the village including the mosque and the tank should also continue to be used for the villagers of the adjoining village.