' This is a revision petition against the order, dated 29th July, 1969 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, whereby he rejected the petitioner's appeal regarding opening of a piece of land in Makan Katiar, Taluka Chhachhro, for cultivation.
2. The facts of the case are that the land in dispute was closed to cultivation by the Deputy Collector, Tharparkar, vide his endorsement No, 3628, dated 17-2-1942 and the appeals against the closure were rejected by the Deputy Commissioner and Revenue Commissioner for Sind at that time. The petitioner again approached the Deputy Commissioner for opening the-piece for cultivation but his request was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner mainly on the ground that the piece was closed to cultivation under the orders of the Revenue Commissioner for Sind and he could not revise those orders. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, vide the impugned order on the same ground.
3. The counsel for the petitioner conteded that all the lands surrounding the disputed land were being cultivated and had been disposed of and that the Goth was at a distance of 4-6 miles from the disputed land. He further contended that there was no tarai in the vicinity of the disputed land and the trees, if any, had all withered away and that the piece could not be useful for the purposes of Asaish of cattle any more.
4. The respondent stated that he had nothing to say in the matter.
5. Have considered the arguments put forth by the counsel and seen the record. The Mukhtiarkar, Chachhro, vide his note, dated 23-12-1964 on the sketch (Page 151 of Sindhi correspondence) remarked that there were not many trees at the site. According to report No, 420/1966, dated 1-2- 1969 from the Deputy Collector, Desert addressed to the Commissioner, Hyderabad, there was also no tarai or village near the disputed land. The request of the petitioner has not been examined by the two lower Courts mainly and the ground that they could not revise the orders of the Revenue Commissioner for Sind closing the piece to cultivation. I cannot, however, agree with this assumption of the lower Courts. If the circumstances at the site have changed and if there is no justification for keeping the piece for asaish purpose any more, it can be opened to cultivation by the authorities and the orders of the Revenue Commissioner are not a bar to it. The orders of the two Courts below are not therefore, proper and are hereby set aside. The case is remanded to the Assistant Commissioner concerned for examining the advisibility and merits of keeping the disputed land closed to cultivation and for passing fresh orders in the matter accordingly. He should hear all concerned before passing the orders. .m.