' This is a revision petition against the order dated 5-4-1977 of the Addiiional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, in respect of grant of S. No, 317 of Deh Ghurbi Taluka Badin.
14-26
2. The petitioner is present with his counsel Mr. Bhimraj. The respondents are present with their counsel Mr. Rustam Khan. Munshi Muhimmad Pinjal, Tapedar is present with record. The counsels were heard and record perused on 29-11-1977 and the orders were reserved.
3. The facts of the case are that the disputed S. No, was granted by the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage to Allahdino (alias Ali Muhammed) and Wali Muhammed on Harap conditions. The petitioner and other persons preferred an appeal against this grant and an area of 2-20 acres out of this S No, was reserved for village Asaish while the grant of the respondents in respect of the remaining area was allowed to remain in tact. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.
4. The counsel for the petitioner 'contended that the respondents are not genuine and bona fide Haris of the Deh and that the houses of the petitioner are situated in the disputed land and he has preferential right over its grant. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner is not resident of the Deh. He has referred to the order of Revenue Officer, in support of his contentions.
5. I have considered the case. According to the order of Revenue Officer the petitioner is stated to be resident of Deh Nareri as his name is recorded as voter in that Deh. As regards the respondents, there are specific findings of the Assistant Commissioner and the Barrage Mukhtiarkar referred to in the order of Revenue Officer that they are Haris in cultivating possession of the disputed land.
There is no reason to disbelieve their reports. The respondents have, therefore, a better claim over grant of the land. The counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner has been granted 5-12 acres in this Deh and this is sufficient proof of the fact that he is an eligible tenant of the Deli. The petitioner would, however, not be entitled to grant of the disputed land in preference to the respondents even if this plea of the counsel is accepted as according to order of priorities for grant of land, the respondents, who are landless Haris of the deh, would be entitled to preference over the petitioner, who already holds an area of 5-12 acres in the Deh. In view of this position, the petitioner has no case. His revision petition merits no consideration and it is, therefore, rejected.