' The facts briefly are that Survey Nos. 311, 312 and 315 admeasuring 19 Acres 32 Ghuntas of Deh Duz, Taluka Tando Bago were granted to the petitioner Saleh by the Deputy Colonization Officer on Harp tenure in December, 1961. The respondent filed an appeal before the Revenue Officer on 8-9-1962 against this grant. The Revenue Officer upheld the appeal on 1-7-1964. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed second appeal before the Director, G. M. B., Project, on 25-7-1964. After hearing the parties the learned Project Director rejected the appeal on the ground that the petitioner had not been able to produce any evidence showing his Mohag or P. K. M. Rights nor he had any other evidence indicating his preferential claim to the disputed land. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed a revision.
2. Mr. Zahoor Hussain Raja contended that the grant was made in favour of the petitioner in an open Kutchery. The respondent should have also applied for this land there. The respondent filed a belated appeal before the Revenue Officer who should have not allowed the time-barred appeal.
The respondent claim to be in possession of the disputed land from 1954-55 to 1961-62 ; however, the extract of the Field Book showed that he was Hari of the disputed land for only one year preceding the grant.
3. Mr. Bughio Advocate for the respondent, contended that the respondent was Hari of one Wali Muhammad Shah who had taken up the disputed land from 1955-56 on Yaksalo. Wali Muhammad Shah was the proper man to say which Hari he had employed. Since no name of any Hari was shown in the Field Book, the only reliable evidence was that of Wali Muhammad Shah who stated on oath before the Revenue Officer that the respondent was Hari of the disputed land and it was on this statement that R. O. Granted the land to the respondent. Since this is a point of fact which both R.
0. And the P. D. Had accepted this Court, sitting in revisional side could not go into that fact because there was nothing illegal or improper in the order of lower Courts. He also invited attention to commentary on section 164 of the Land Revenue Act which reads as under :- "Where the Collector and the Commissioner arrive at concurrent findings interference on the revisional side should be very rare and concurrent findings of the Collector and the Commissioner should not be interfered with as the concurrent findings are not desirable to be reopened.
Concurrent findings should not be disturbed unless there is an illegality or material irregularity; because interference in second can only be made if there has been wrong exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity."
' Therefore, the Court in revision, according to him, can only revise the concurrent findings of the lower Court provided there was some illegality or material or patent irregularity. Since there was neither illegality, nor material irregularity in this case, there was no reason to interfere with the findings of the lower Court.
4. After going through the record and hearing the Advocates, I am convinced that the petitioner has failed to bring any evidence to controvert the facts accepted by the Revenue Officer or the Project Director. He has also failed to prove that any material irregularity or illegality has been committed by the lower Courts. As such 1 find no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower Court. The revision petition is dismissed.