' This facts briefly are that an area of 7-34 Acres from U. A. No, 44 of Deh Bhambhki, Taluka Badin was granted to respondent Bachayo on Harap condition from 63-64 by the Deputy Colonization Officer, G. M. Barrage. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Revenue Officer which was rejected.
He then preferred another appeal to the Additional Commissioner which was also rejected. It is against that order that the petitioner has filed this revision.
2. Mr. Bheemraj, Advocate for the petitioner, argued that according to the then existing policy, the land was to be disposed of only with the consent of the villagers of the adjoining village. The disputed laud is situated within 20 chains of the village Khokhar where the petitioner resides. As against that the respondent resides in village Bachayo Mallah which is about mile away from the disputed land. The Advocate has also shown me Voters list, prepared in 1964 and 1969 which show that the respondent resides in village Bachayo Mallah. He also argued that the land was not released in Schedule. As the respondent has no other land except the disputed one which is only 7- 34 Acres, it cannot be granted to him as it is less than 16 Acres, the subsisting holding. The petitioner, according to him, has continuously been in possession of this land and he has also built houses unauthorizedly. Therefore, it will be unjust if this land is not granted to the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Aslam, the Advocate for the respondent contended that the Advocate for the petitioner has for the first time raised the plea of 20 chains within the village or that the land was not released in the Schedule. The Chairman, Union Council concerned has issued a certificate to the respondent to the effect that he resided in village Khokhar. The name of the respondent shown in the Voters list prepared in 1964 and 1969 may be of someone else by the same name. He, however, failed to show any other name in the Voters list to support his contention. He lastly argued that since the land has been granted to the respondent in open Kutchery in 1964, it would be unjust if it is cancelled now after so many years.
4. The Supervising Tapedar who is present in this Court states that the respondent resides with his father in a village which is mile away from the village Khokhar. The basic point of law involved in this case was whether the grant in the open Kutchery implied waiver of the consent from the villagers of the adjoining village for the purpose of disposal of land. The case was, therefore, postponed and the Advocates were advised to produce rulings on that point. The Advocate for the petitioner produced a copy of the judgment given by Mr. S. M. Ikram in the case of Haji Khan Muhammad v. Syed Dilshah of Taluka Mehar, District Dadu decided in 1962 in support of his contention that the villagers are invariably to be consulted for disposal of land within 20 chains of the village.
5. For the disposal of land within 20 chains of a village, the Government of Sind had issued order, vide their Resolution No, R-9373-E, dated 20-7-1944 wherein it has been laid down, inter alia, that the Barrage Mukhtiarkar should serve a notice on the inhabitants of the village informing them that the offer has been made for the land and if they had any objection to the disposal they could make representation within one month of the service of the notate. The disposal of land within 20 chains is being made in accordance with these instructions. This clearly shows that mere presence of some of the villagers at the time of Kutchery will not imply waiver of the condition of serving notice to the villagers and inviting their objection within 30 days. In view of these facts, I accept this revision on the point of law and direct that the portion of the land which is within 20 chains of the village Khokhar should be excluded from the grant.