' This is a revision petition (wrongly termed as an appeal) against the order, dated 14-3-1973 passed by the Revenue Commissioner, Sind, Hyderabad whereby he had rejected appeal of the petitioner against grant of S. No, 249 Deh Khathar, Taluka Hyderabad to Manzoor Ali on the basis of Mohag right.
2. Heard the Counsels for the parties. They urged the following points :- Counsel for Uris.-
(i) Uris is landless Hari. He had applied for grant of the land in Katchery. His houses are situated in the land ; and
(ii) Manzoor Ali holds 70 Acres of land on his Khata. He had not held S. No, 250 for more than 10 years on his Khata and as such no Mohag right had accrued to him in respect of that S. No, Counsel for Saeed Ahmed.-
(1) There is a road and a Nalli in the disputed S. No, The road is by the side of crossing of Phuleli Canal and is used by the villagers, whereas Nalli irrigates the adjacent lands. These facts are supported by the report of Assistant Commissioner. The villagers were deprived of these two rights by disposal of land to the respondent ;
(ii) Manzoor Ali had sold S. No, 250 to Sabir Ali in the year 1969 and he had no Mohag right over the disputed land ;
(iii) The new land grant policy would now govern the disposal of the land and the appeals/revisions are to be examined in the light of the new Land grant policy, vide PLD 1965, SC-1.
Hari has preference over Mohagdar. Uris has better right than Manzoor Ali but the land lies within 20 chains of village graveyard and it may be reserved for village Asaish.
Counsel for Manzoor Ali.- (i)Uris has lost his appeal at the two lower forums and there are two concurrent findings against him. There is no evidence to show that he had applied for grant of land in Katchery. Be,ides, there are no standing orders to the effect that Mohagdars should hold land for atleast 10 years before they claim Mohag right ;
(ii) S. No, 250 was owned by Manzoor Ali and the sale agreement executed by him in 1969 would not deprive him of his Mohag riaht as the final deed was registered in the year 1974 ;
(iii) There is no sanctioned village within 20 chains of the disputed land. There is no Nalli or road on the site. Even otherwise all rights of way of water were guaranteed and the villagers had no genuine cause for grievance ; and
(iv) The villagers were not a party in the earlier proceedings. They have raised new pleas. They had no locus standi in the matter.
3. The counsel for Uris lastly contended that the villagers had not protested against disposal of the land in Katchery. On the other hand, counsel for the villagers contended that they were not asking for grant of land to any individual but they were only requesting for reservation of the land for village Asaish.
4. I have considered the case. The disputed land was granted to Manzoor Ali on the basis of Mohag of S. No, 250. According to registered sale-deed No, 109, dated 15-1-1974, Manzoor Ali had sold it to Sabir Ali, vide sale agreement, dated 6-7-1979 and had delivered the possession of the land to him.In view of this position, Manzoor Ali was not full owner of S. No, 250 at the time of grant ot the disputed land to him and as such he could not claim Mohag right over the disputed land. Besides Manzoo Ali did not hold S. No, 250 for a period of 10 years prior to 1-7-1957; hence he was not entitled to any land on Monag right, vide Circular No, 1158-58/1000 PI V, dated 4-4-1960 of the Secretary (Lti) B.O.R., W.P., Lahore. Brushing aside any other considerations, the grant made to him on Mohag right was accordingly not proper and is not maintainable. The report No, HC/2037, dated 15-7-1974 from the Assistant Commissioner, Saddar indicates that there was a Nalli and Pechro on the site and that the Pechro was very old and connected people of village Khathar with people living on the bank of Phulleli. It is also contended that the land is quite adjacent to the village graveyard, and is required for village Asaish. In view of this position, the grant of the disputed land made in favour of Manzoor Ali is hereby set aside and it is directed that the S. No, may be disposed of afresh strictly in accordance with the provisions of Newland grant policy. It is further directed that before considering its fresh disposal, the rights of the parties to use the Nalli and the road should be protected and the question of reserving the S. No, for village Asaish may be considered after giving all concerned an opportunity of being heard.