' This is a revision petition against the order dated 5-6-1975 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad in respect of S. No, 59 of Deli Pir Misri, Taluka Tando Bago.
2. The petitioner is present with his counsel Mr. Habibullah. Muhammad Rahim is present in person.
Munshi Muhammad Suleman Tapedar is present with record. The counsel has been heard for the petitioner and the respondent has been heard in person.
3. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent already holds more than 29 acres of land on his Khata and he was not eligible to grant of disputed land. He has produced copies of the following documents in support of his contention.
(i) Entry No, 2 of register Dakhil Kharij of Deh Pir Misri according to which the respondent purchased of 6-6 acres.
(ii) Copy of land grant Rubkari No, 7, dated 6-2-1970 of Deh Pir Misri according to witich the respondent was granted 18-23 acres.
(iii) Copy of offer according to which the respondent was granted as area 4-30 acres in Deh Pir Misri.
4. The counsel further contends that the petitioner is Hari and has produced copy of Khasra Girdawari showing him as tenant of S. No, 59 from the years 1972-73 to 1974-75. On the other hand, the respondent contends that he had already surrendered the area of 18-23 acres granted to him and that he is Hari of the Deh and the disputed land had rightly been granted to him.
5. I have considered the case. The grant of petitioner was cancelled by the Additional Commissioner on the ground that he is a minor and some body else had impersonated him before Additional Commissioner. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the person, who had appeared before the Additional Commissioner, was actually representative of the petitioner but he is not able to show that the petitioner-was major and had any preferential right over grant of land.
He has, therefore, no case for grant of the disputed land. As regards the respondent, he had not applied for grant of disputed land in Katchery. Besides, he already held 29-19 acres on his Khata and he was not eligible to grant of land The plea that he had surrendered 18-23 acres has firstly not been substantiated and secondly even after exclusion of this area, the holding of respondent would increase beyond subsistence holding if the disputed land is granted to him and he would not, therefore, be eligible to its grant.
' In view of the above position, the revision petition is partly upheld to the extent that the grant made to the respondent is also cancelled and it is directed that the land should be disposed of afresh strictly according to the Land Grant Policy.