' This is a revision petition in respect of grant of Survey Nos. 292, 293 of Deh Phoosna, Taluka Tando Bago.
2. Petitioner is present with his counsel Mr. Iqbal Jafferi. Respondent is present in person. Munshi Arbab Ali Tapedar is present with record. The counsel for the petitioners and the respondent in person have been heard.
3. The disputed land was granted by the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad to the petitioner on Harap conditions. On appeal, it has been granted to the respondent by Additional Commissioner, .Hyderabad vide the impugned order on the ground that both of them are Hans and that the respondent was residing nearer to the disputed land and was, therefore, entitled to preference according to the Land Grant Policy. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent already held sufficient land on his Khata and was not eligible to grant of any land. He has produced a photostat copy of Form A No, 835 Deh Phoosna and a copy of Entry No, 13 dated 18- 2-1955 of village Form No, VII of Deh Phoosna in support of his contention. The 'A' Form shows that the petitioner was granted an area of 13-09 acres in the deh while Entry of village Form shows that the petitioner holds 8 annas share in Survey Nos. 261, 262, 264, 267 and 245 of Deh. The respondent does not rebut these documents and is also not able to produce any document to show that he has any preferential claim over grant of the disputed land. The counsel for the petitioner has also produced a Bill of assessm ent for the year 1972-73 to 1976-77 which indicates that land revenue in respect of the disputed land was assessed against the petitioner. He has also argued that the land was in his possession prior to its grant. In view of the documents produced by the counsel for the petitioner it appears that the respondent has better social status and possess sufficient land already. He was, therefore, not eligible to grant of the disputed land in preference to the petitioner.
The order of the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad. Granting disputed land to the petitioner is, therefore, maintained. In the result, the revision petition is upheld and the order dated 19-5-1976 of the Additional Commissioner, is set aside.