1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The appellants were granted in 1969 land measuring 597 acres in Ghulam Muhammad Barrage by the Director.
2. Colonization under Mechanization Cultivation Scheme. Respondents Nos. 2 to 14 who are locals and claimed perpetual rights to cultivate the land, thereupon filed separate appeals which were allowed in part by the Member, Board of Revenue on different dates. The orders passed in appeal were further reviewed by the Member, Board of Revenue on 19-3-65. In the result 149.22 acres of land was cancelled from the grant of the appellants and given to respondents Nos. 2 to 14 on the basis of their special rights to cultivate the Barrage land.
3. The appellants felt aggrieved by the orders passed by the Member, Board of Revenue and filed a revision petition before the Board which was dismissed as incompetent in law. They then filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the legality of the original appellate orders and the order passed on review by the Member, Board of Revenue on the ground that the Board had no powers to interfere with the orders passed by the Director Coloniza--petition granting land to the appellants. It was urged that the powers conferred on the Board under the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 were confined to Revenue cases only and in any case the Member, Board of Revenue could not review his own orders.
4. The writ petition was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of the High Court holding that appeals were competent under section 5(l) of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957. The second contention was also found to be without any force more particularly as the appellants had themselves filed review petitions before the Board of Revenue from the orders passed by the Member, Board of Revenue on appeals.
5. Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the Board of Revenue had the jurisdiction to hear appeals filed by respondents Nos. 2 to 14 directly from the orders passed by the Director, Colonization Ghulam Muhammad Barrage. It was conceded that the Board of Revenue was the ultimate appellate authority but it was urged that an appeal lay in the first instance under the Sind Land Revenue Code to the Commissioner-the Director being in accordance with the notification of the Government a Collector.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants we find no substance in the contention raised in the appeal. By notification issued by the Govern--ment on 4-5-1960 under section 5-A of the Sind Land Revenue Code Director, Colonization Ghulam Muhammad Barrage was invested with the powers of an Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division. Appeals lay to him from orders passed by the Collector and other subordinate Revenue Officers. By another notification dated 4-2-1963 made under sections 23 and 24 of the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation Ordinance, 1961 the powers and functions relating to land utilization in Ghulam Muhammad Barrage were to be performed by the Corporation subject to the directions of the Board of Revenue.
7. No appeal therefore lay from the orders passed by the Director Colonization to the Commissioner, Hyderabad. Similarly under the second notification the Board of Revenue was invested with the over all superintendence and control in all matters pertaining to utilization of land which included grant of land to the appellants.
8. The combined effect of the notification was that the grant of land to the appellants by the Director Colonization was open to modification or cancellation by the Board of Revenue. In this view the High Court has quite rightly declined to interfere in exercise of its writ jurisdiction with the impugned orders passed by the Board of Revenue. On merits too the orders were justified. It was wrong on the part of the Director Colonization to ignore the rights of respondents Nos. 2 to 14 who are locals altogether. They had Khasmokal rights in the Barrage land and in view of it some land ought to have been allotted to them too.
9. We accordingly find no merit in the appeal and dismiss it but without making any order as to costs.