' These are seven cases in respect of land in Dehs Pahori and Laneri Taluka Badin, to the Settlers of Districts Lyallpur, Campbellpur and Hazara, referred by the then Director, Ghulam Muhammad Barrage Project, Hyderabad, vide his order, dated 30-5-1968 for orders by the Board of Revenue.
2. The facts of the case are that the lands in dispute were granted to the following persons as settlers of Districts Lyallpur, Campbellpur and Hazara. #TBS Sr. No, Name of Grantee Deli 1 Ghulam Sarwar Pahori 2 Ghulam Siddik Ghulam Yasin 4 Ghulam Kadir 5 Abdul Rashid 6 Muhammad Yousuf Larari #TBE S. No, allotted Area.
322/1 to 4,323/1 31-17, to 4.325/1 & 326/2. Acres.
311/1, 3,4, 312/1 to 4, 324/1, 2. 32-20.
304/1 to 4, 313/1 to 32-00.
4.
314/1 to 4, 315/1 to 4. 30-19.
320, 321/1 to 4. 32-00.
231, 232, US-116 32-00.
3. The petitioners preferred appeal against these grants on the ground that some of the land were on lease with them and the then Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, remanded all the seven appeals, vide his order dated 20-11-1962 for consideration of claims of the appellants on merit with directions that effort may be made to satisfy the claims of the appellants if the settlers could be accommodated elsewhere and if no settlement is achieved, the papers may be resubmitted to the Board of Revenue for final decision. In pursuance of this remand order, the Director, Ghulam Muhammad Barrage Project, Hyderabad heard both the parties but has, vide his order, dated 30-5-196s, referred the case to the Board of Revenue on the ground that the parties were not agmeable to any settlement and it was not possible to settle he respondents on compact pieces on equally good quality land if the claims of the appellants were admitted. These cases were, therefore, again taken up in the Board of Revenue for adjudication.
4, The notices against the respondents have been received back unserved and the Tapedar of the beat reports that the respondents- grantees of the disputed land are not available on the land. The cases are therefore, proceeded against them ex parte.
5. Heard the counsel for appellants. The appellants claim that they had P. K. M. Right on the land and it is adjacent to their village, I, however, find that the land was reserved for allotment to the settlers of the Northern District and it was not available for allotment to any other category of claimants. The P. K. M. Right, if any, could not, therefore, be claimed in respect of such grants. The request of the appellants, therefore, merits no consideration and is rejected.
6. The counsel for the appellants, however, contended that the respondents are not residing on the land in accordance with the terms and conditions of the grant and that their grants are, therefore, liable to cancellation. The Tapedar of the beat has also supported these contentions. The Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage should, therefore, examine this aspect of the case and take appropriate action according to law.
7. The cases were heard by me on 7-9-1977 and the order was reserved. The parties may be informed. .