' This is a revision petition against the order dated 19-11-1975 of the \Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad in respect of grant of evacuee surrendered S. No, 107 of Deh Dourang Taluka Badin.
2. The petitioner is present with his counsel Mr. S. M. Kella. The respondent is present with his counsel Mr. Rustam Khan Talpur. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mukhtiarkar Badin and Munshi Ali Muhammad Tapedar are present with record. The counsels have been heard and the record perused.
3. The disputed land was granted to the petitioner by Assistant Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad on Harap conditions. It has been granted to the respondent in appeal vide the impugned order.
4. The appeal of the respondent was upheld mainly on the grounds that the name of the respondent is entered as Hari of the S. No, in Khasra Girdawari during the years 1972-73 and 1973-
74. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the entries bad been managed in the Khasra Girdawari and has produced a Rubkari issued by the Mukhtiarkar showing that the S. No, was Banjar Qadim and name of none was entered as Hari in the record. The counsel contends that the petitioner is a landless bona fide Hari of the land since migration of Hindus. He also states t at the Mukhtiarkar had visited the site before a Katchery and had found that the petitioner was the actual Hari of the disputed S. No, and was residing there and, therefore, he had preferential right over its grant. On the other hand the counsel for the respondent has referred to entries in Khasra Girdawari for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74 and has also produced Land Revenue receipts and bills of assessm ent for the year 1972-73 in support of his claim that the respondent is Hari in cultivating possession of the disputed land. He argues that the entries in Khasra Girdawari would carry more value than the report of the Mukhtiarkar.
5. I have considered the case. The Mukhtiarkar has produced the original paper of his office relating to Rubkari No, 259, dated 3-2-1975 and the Site Inspection Report No, Sett/694, dated 10-3-1975 referred by the counsel for the petitioner. These papers show that the land was uncultivated and no one was recorded as a Hari of the S. No, and such entries in Khasra Girdawari in favour of the respondent were not correct and cannot be relied upon. The site inspection report of Mukhtiarkar further reveals that the pepetitioner was residing in the S. No, and there is no trace of the respondent in the report although the site inspection was conducted in presence of the respondent. Obviously the site inspection report of Mukhtiarkar is more reliable than the entries made by the Tapedar. In these circumstances there was no justification for sturbing the grant of the petitioner. The revision petition is accordingly upheld and grant in respect of the disputed S. No, is restored to the petitioner.