' This is a review petition in respect of the land measuring 24 acres out of U. A. No, 4 of Oeh Dubi, Taluka Tando Muhammad Khan.
2. Mr. Ghulam Rabbani counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Noor Muhammad Bughio counsel for the respondent are present. They have been heard and the case record perused.
3. The facts leading to the review petition are that the petitioner recorded offer for grant of an area of 24 acres from U. A. No, 4 and had also paid initial deposition on 21-3-1970 and 21-12-1970. He was subsequently granted 4 acres from Survey No, 196 and 4 acres from Survey No, 252 of the same Deh. The Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad, however, vide his order dated 22-12-1972, allowed the petitioner to retain only 800 acres form U. A. No, 4 on the ground that he could in all retain an area of 16 acres inclusive of his other grant of 8.00 acres according to the new Land Grant Policy. The petitioner preferred an appeal but the same was rejected by the then Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Sind, Hyderabad vide the impugned order.
4. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had given offer much prior to the promulgation of New Land Grant Policy and had also paid initial deposits in the year 1970. He argues that in view of Circular Letter No, 360/73/6890/KB-1, dated 8-8-1974 of the Government of Sind, Land Utilization Department the offer recorded by the petitioner in respect of disputed land was to be regularized under old Land Grant Policy and he was eligible to grant of land to the extent of 32 acres under that Policy.
5. The counsel for respondent contends that the case of the petitioner would not be governed under the old Land Grant Policy as there were other contestants for grant of the land as well,
6. I have considered the case. The two Land Revenue Receipts produced by the counsel for the petitioner show that initial deposit of Rs, 100 was paid vide Receipt No, 4499-55-69 dated 21-3-1970 and Rs, 6C0 vide Receipt No, 3803/67-89 dated 21-12-1970. The orders contained in the Government of Sind Land Utilization Department Circular Letter dated 8-8-1974 are quite clear. Since the offer had been recorded by the petitioner and initial deposits by him prior to the year 1970-71, his request for grant of disputed land had to be considered under the old Land Grant Policy. The review petition is, therefore, upheld and the case is remanded to the Revenue Officer, K. B. Hyderabad. He should, reexamine the case of the petitioner in light of the instructions contained in the Government of Sind (L.U) Department's Letter dated 8-8-1974 referred to above and pass fresh orders accordingly.
Review .
101.11