' This is a revision petition against the order dated 2-7-1975 of the Commissioner, Hyderabad, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and maintaining the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad, who had ordered cancellation of the entry in respect of S. No, 172 and others and bad remanded the case to the Mukhtiarkar, Tando Allahyar for deciding the base afresh in accordance with the rules.
2. Facts of the case are already given in the impugned order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner need not be reproduced.
3. The counsel for the petitioner, who was present on the last date of hearing, contended that the partition was made with mutual consent of all the co-sharers. Hence no one should have any cause of grievance, much less the petitioner who had her due share. The contention of the petitioner that the partition was against the provision of M. L R. 115 was not correct, as the co- sharers, after partition, bad subsistence holding in the same deh as they had other land on the khata. The Tapedar who was present, however, stated that this was not correct. The Advocate, therefore, requested adjournment on the ground that he would produce copies of the Record-of- Rights in support of his contention that the co-sharers, after partition, had subsistence holding on their khata in that deh. The Advocate was absent on the date of hearing. However, Tapedar who was directed to verify the record stated that the contention of the Advocate for the petitioner was not correct and that the land 'after partition fell much below the subsistence holding in most of the cases.
4. The counsel for the respondent contends that nothing new has been brought out by the counsel for the petitioner and that , the basic point involved was that the partition was against the provision of M. L. R. 115, hence void ab initio.
5. I have heard the counsel of the parties and have also gone through the record. - There were in all 62-25 acres which was partitioned among 39 sharers and after partition almost all of them had land below subsistence holding. The Tapedar had confirmed that they had no additional land on their A khata to upgrade their holding to subsistence holding. The partition is, therefore, obviously against the provision of M. L. R. 115 and thus void. The lower Courts had therefore rightly rejected the request of the petitioner. The revision is also rejected.