' The facts briefly are that the Revenue Officer granted 8 acres out of U. A. No, 530 Deh Pariharki, Taluka Badin to the petitioner in open Katchery in the year 1968. It was a Harap grant. Subsequently, it transpired that the petitioner was not Hari but was a teacher and, therefore, land was cancelled and granted to the respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Project Director, G. M. B., Hyderabad, where he raised the point that the respondent was outsider who has already been granted 60 Acres of land and that the respondent not Hari but a Clerk having 8 shops and 8 houses. The learned Project Director rejected the appeal without comment on the points raised by the petitioner about the status of the respondent. It is against that order that the petitioner has come in revision,
2. Mr. Ali Murad, Advocate has reiterated the contention raised by the petitioner in the Court of the Project Director. He contends that respondent is not a Hari but is moneyed man and with sufficient properties. In support thereof he has shown me certificate of the Chairman, Town Committee, Talhar. He has also shown me certified copy of the certificate of the Hyderabad, that the respondent has plot No, 1 having area of 210 sq. Ft situated in Talhar and No, 4 measuring 2400 sq.
Ft and he resides in Talhar. The grant made to the petitioner was a provisional one and that he was not required under law to produce permission from the department for the purpose of purchasing any land below Rs, 5,000 from the Government. He also contended that the respondent applied for another piece of land in U. A. No, 530 which was granted to him in the open Katchery. Subsequently, it transpired that it was within 20 chains of village hence it was cancelled and in lieu thereof he was given the disputed land from the grant of the petitioner.
3. Mr. Gul Muhammad, on the other hand, contends that the respondent is a Hari who was Rranted land as such in 1961 on Harap tenure in the very Deh in which the disputed land is situated. The petitioner, by no stretch of imagination, can be called Hari because he is not only rich and well-to- do person but was teacher also at the time when the land was granted to him. Being a Government servant, he had to obtain permission from Government before purchasing Government land. This disposal is surreptitious as the petitioner deliberately concealed this fact from Barrage authorities at the time of grant. Moreover, a teacher can never be called a Hari and, therefore, any grant on Harap condition to him was wrong and illegal ab initio.
4. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I am convinced that both the parties are not Hans. The petitioner was a school teacher when this land was granted to him on Harap tenure. Thus the grant was not proper. The respondent, on the other hand, has lands, shops and other properties. He does not even look like a Hari. It is not understood why the disputed land was granted to him in lieu of the land cancelled from his grant. In fact, the land should have been disposed of to genuine and real Hans or the Deh in open Katchery, I, therefore, reject the revision of the petitioner with a direction that the disputed land should be disposed of afresh in open Katchery to the genuine Hans of the Deh.
Revision rejected, 4111.111117-