1992 PLP 1040 (CLC)

(b) Muhammad Juman (Petitioner No.2) S.No.709 area 2‑37 Acres. (c) Siddik (Petitioner No3) jointly S.No.717 area 3.33 acres in equal shares (d) Mohammad (Petitioner No.5) S.No.718 area 3‑10 acres , in equal shares. e) Shafi.Muhammad (Petitioner No.6) (f) Rajab (Petitioner No.7) Jointly. The grant was challenged by respondents Nos.4 and 5 in appeal before the Additional Commissioner Hyderabad, (Respondent No.2), who by order dated 29‑12‑1989 set aside the order dated 21‑1‑1987 of respondent No.3 and directed fresh disposal of land through Kutchery in accordance with existing land grand policy.

3. The respondents 4 & 5 filed revision petition before the respondent No.1 under section 164 of Land Revenue Act. The revision petition was allowed and the disputed land granted to respondents 4 and 5 by order dated 14‑4‑1988. The order of respondent No.1 is impugned in this Constitutional Petition. Mr. K.B. Bhutto, the learned advocate for the petitioners has contended that eligibility of each one of the contestant for the grant of land was considered by respondent No.3 in open Kutchery, as required under condition No.6 (1) of Conditions for grant of State land. The petitioners were found eligible for the grant and the land was granted to them. Neither the respondent No.2 in appeal could direct fresh disposal, nor the respondent No.1 in revision could upset the grant of petitioners and direct that entire land be granted to respondents Nos.4 &

5. The learned advocate has referred to the condition No.4 of the land grant policy, which lays down the order of priorities while land is being disposed of. It is contended that the petitioners, having been found to have better claim, were granted the same and respondents Nos.4 and, 5, also present in Kutchery, their claim having duly been considered were found ineligible for the grant. In these circumstances, the respondent No. 1 while exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 164 of Land Revenue Act could not direct grant of land to respondents 4 and 5, who were otherwise found ineligible for the grant. Mr. A.G. Mangi, the learned Additional Advocate‑General for respondents Nos.1 to 3 pointed out that the dispute is between petitioners and private respondents and any decision by this Court shall be followed by official respondents. Mr. Ali Bux Balouch, learned counsel for the respondents 4 & 5 contended that during Kutchery the petitioners had in fact not substantiated their claim and therefore the land was erroneously granted to them. He has supported the order dated 14‑4‑1988, of respondent No.1 who rightly directed the grant of land to respondents 4 and

5. We have perused the record and various orders passed by Revenue Authorities. The order dated 14‑4‑1988 of respondent No.1 is neither speaking nor does it give reasons for granting land to respondents Nos.4 and 5, who were found ineligible for the grant either by respondent No.3 or respondent No.2. The evidence if any, in favour of respondents Nos.4 and 5, having preferential riots, should have been left open for consideration by respondent No.3 who was the granting authority. The order dated 29‑12‑1987 of respondent No.2 in appeal was proper, and passed on equity and law. The same needed no interference, as it caused no prejudice to either of the parties, who would have been heard afresh by Revenue Officer Kotri Barrage. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 14‑4‑1988 of respondent No.1 and declare, the same to have been passed in excess of jurisdiction. We maintain the order dated 29‑12‑1987 of the respondent No.2 who directed the disposal of land afresh in accordance with existing land grant policy. We, therefore, remand the case to respondent No.3 and direct that disputed land should be disposed by him afresh in accordance with the existing land grant policy within 3 months of receipt of this order. The respondents Nos.4 and 5 have filed affidavits showing that they are in possession of the land and this fact is not controverted. Their possession shall not be disturbed till the disposal of land afresh. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1535/K Case remanded.