P L D 1964 W (PLP)

This is termed as a review application against the order dated 20‑4‑1960 of my learned predecessor Mr. S. M. Ikram, C. S. P., M. B. R. (L. U.).

2. The facts are that an area of 11‑22 acres in deh Dingo, Taluka N'Feroze was granted to the petitioner from Rabi 1956‑

57. Respondent Surkhuru Khan, who was a counter offerer preferred an appeal to the C. O. Sukkur Barrage, who accepted it for the reason that he was inferior in status than the petitioner. Hakim Ali petitioner preferred an appeal to the Addi tional Commissioner, Khairpur Division, who accepted it on the ground that he was landless, and. the respondent had 25 acres of land. The respondent then preferred a revision before the Board on the ground of mohag and also for the fact that the petitioner was mechanic and not a hari cultivator. This petition was accepted by the learned M. B. R. (L. U.) Mr. S. M. Ikram, C. S. P., on 20‑4‑1960 with the following observations now impugned :‑ "The respondent Hakim Ali is not a cultivator by profession and is reported to be a mechanic on the Lathe Machine of his nephew. This fact has been mentioned even in the Commis sioner's order. Further he has given this land to one Ahmad Khan for five years according to the report of Barrage Mukhtiarkar. Against it petitioner Surkhru is a small Khatedar having less than 24 acres according to the same report of the Barrage Mukhtiarkar as supported by the Revenue Officer. The petitioner has, therefore, preferential claim to the land in dispute as he belongs to a hari family".

3. The petitioner has now filed the present review applica tion on the following main grounds :‑ (i) he is landless, while the respondent owns 30 acres. (ii) the petitioner is in cultivating possession since 1956 and he has made the grant fully paid up.

4. The review application is time‑barred and the petitioner, has appended an application for condonation of time limit. The probable reason for failure to apply for review within time was that the petitioner filed a civil suit and also a writ petition against the Board of Revenue, which have been dismissed. In my opinion this does not constitute an adequate reason for condonation of delay.

5. Even on merits I find that there is no case made out for review. Had the petitioner been a landless Hari, he would have been entitled to the land in preference to the respondent. The concurrent findings of the learned Additional Commissioner and my learned predecessor, however, are that he is a mechanic and not a self‑cultivator. Therefore, he does not fall in the landless Hari category. As for the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that because he had made the grant fully paid up, appeals and revisions were precluded, it has been held by Qadiruddin, J., in The Province of West Pakistan v. Juman (P L D 1960 Kar. 908) that the fact that a person promptly depositing money to make a grant fully paid up, does not defeat the rights of other claimants to obtain redress on permits through appeals and revisions under section 203 of the Sind Land Revenue Code, read with the Board of Revenue Act. In the ruling his Lordship was pleased to observe that :‑ "I am led by the foregoing considerations to the conclusion that the `Sanad' is a contract but the order under which it was executed was appealable. The appeal having been preferred in accordance with the provisions of the law, the order could be set aside. After it was set aside it could neither be pursued further, nor the acts done in execution of it could survive. After the order was set aside by the Revenue Officer, the "Sanad" fell in like a structure without foundation."

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has endeavoured to argue that his client was made the grant initially on 3‑9‑55 and he had paid the initial deposit on 6‑9‑

55. At that time the respondent was nowhere in the picture. He claims that the appeal was also filed about a year subsequently. From this he would have me believe that an error apparent on the face of the record within the meaning of section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act has been committed. The term `error' apparent on the face of the record has been clearly defined in the Supreme Court Ruling per Mr. Justice Sharif, reported in P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 201‑205 and this ruling has been adopted in Abbasi, M. B. R.'s ruling, reported in P L D 1961 W P (Rev.)

26. For the reasons given in these rulings I must hold that there is no force in this contention as there is no error apparent on the face of the record in Mr. Ikram's order. There is thus no merit in the, review, which is dismissed in limine. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.