' This is a revision petition against the order dated 24-10-1977 of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, in respect of an area of 66 acres from U. A. No, 162 of Deh Kung, Taluka Tando Bago, District Badin.
1 Ismail, attorney of the petitioner is present with his counsel Mr. Bhimraj. Mr, Nadir Ali representative of Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad and Munshi Shoukat Ali Tapedar are present with record.
3. The disputed land was granted to the petitioner under Mechanized farming scheme in the year 1962-63. It has been cancelled for nonpayment of instalments. The appeal of the petitioner against the cancellation has been rejected vide the impugned order.
4. The counsel for the petitioner has argued the following points-
(i) No show-cause notice was served on the petitioner oefore cancellation of his grant.
(ii) The presence of the grantee himself on the land is not necessary according to the terms of M. F.
S. Grant. The petitioner had appointed Muhammad Ismail, as his attorney since 1969 and he is residing on the land (photostat copy of the power of attorney produced).
(iii) The water was sanctioned for his lands only in the year 1974 and the petitioner was not expected to bring the land under cultivation prior to availability of the irrigation facilities. However, he had cultivated the land since 1970-71 (Land Revenue receipts from the years 1970-71 to 1976-77 produced).
(iv) The petitioner had not sold the land to any one as stated in the impugned order and had appointed Muhammad Ismail as his attorney to manage the land on his behalf.
' The counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the circulars of the Board of Revenue according to which the recovery of instalments in Tando Bago Taluka had been postponed from time to time and argued that the Government is already aware of the fact that the land in the area could not be brought under cultivation due to scarcity of irrigational facilities.
5. The representative of Revenue Officer, K. B. Hyderabad states that the land is still available for restoration and has not been disposed of to any one.
6. The copy of the Rubkari No, CA/Tando Bago/343, dated 13-5-1974 issued by the S. D.
0. Tando Bago Sub-Division, Khadhero, to the petitioner shows that irrigational facilities were provided to the petitioner in the year 1974. The Land Revenue receipts produced by the counsel show that the land had been brought under cultivation since 1970-71. In view of this position it was incumbent upon the authorities to allot the petitioner at least some opportunity to bring the land under cultivation after provision of the irrigational facilities but this has not been done. Besides, due notices, as required by section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, as applicable in the Province of Sind, for rectification of the infringements has also not been given to the grantee. In these circumstances the outright cancellation of the grant is not proper and is, therefore, set aside. The revision petition is accordingly upheld and the grant of the disputed land is restored to the petitioner.