' This is a revision petition against the order dated 25-10-1976 of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division in respect of Survey Nos. 1415 and 1416 of Deh Girhari. Taluka Golarachi.
2. Khamoon is present with his counsel Mr. Rasool Bux Unar. Mr. Ghulam Rasool Baloch, Advocate is present on behalf of the respondent. Mr. Nadir Ali representative of R.
0. Kotri Barrage is present with record. The counsels have been heard and the record perused.
3. The facts of the case are that the dispute land was granted to Pir Dad against reserved quota of settlers during the year 1961-62. The grant was cancelled by the Revenue Officer Kotri Barrage vide his order, dated 30-7-1974 on the ground that he was residing at his home place in district Jhelum and did not possess and residential house in the Chak. The grant was however restored to him by the Revenue Officer vide his order dated 13-6-1975. The appeal of Khamoon against this order was dismissed as time-barred vide impugned order.
4. The counsel for the petitioner contends that grantee had violated terms and conditions of the grant as he had not cultivated the land and he was residing in Jhelum and that he was even now not residing in Deli. The counsel argued that the Revenue Officer could not order restoration of the grant without obtaining prior approval of the higher authority for review as the order of restoration amounted or to review of the order of cancellation of the grant. He also argued that the power of regrant could be exercised by the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad, only upto 30-6-1974 and, therefore, he could not restore the grant to the respondent in the year 1975.
5. I have considered the case. According to standing orders the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad was competent to order restoration of the cancelled grants within 4 years. This is neither a regnant nor a review of the previous order and as such there is no force in the pleas taken by the counsel for the petitioner. The Revenue Officer has ordered restoration after full payment of the arrears and the son-in-law of the grantee are stated to be available on the land. The grant was made to the respondent as far back as 1961-62 and the petitioner has no genuine cause for grievance against it after lapse of such a long period. Besides his appeal before the Commissioner was time-barred. In these circumstances, the revision petition merits no consideration and is rejected.