P L D 1964 W (PLP)

This is a revision petition from Ali Nawaz son of Muhammad Idris, against the order dated 18‑6‑1963 of the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur Division, whereby he. Set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur and upheld the order of the Deputy Collector, Shikarpur, granting an area of 10 acres from un‑surveyed katcha of deh Fateh Tando, taluka Sukkur, to the respondents on harap rights during the year 1962‑63.

2. The facts are that the 10 acres of land in dispute was being granted to Mr. Ghulam Nabi Pathan from the years 1950‑51 to 1959‑

60. During the year 1960‑61, on Ghulam Nabi Pathan's D. K. right being satisfied, it was granted to the respondents, who were haris of the land. In 1961‑62 it was again granted to them. But as in that year the petitioner's D. K. right was not satisfied to the extent of 10 acres, he raised objection. The Deputy Collector over‑ruled this objection on the strange reason that the D. K. right could not be satisfied from the cultivated area and would be met out of a new area thrown up by the river. As the year was expiring, the petitioner hoped for redress in the new Katchery. But the respondents again applied for the grant of the land for the year 1962‑

63. The petitioners reiterated their objections, that his un‑satisfied daryakhurdi rights be satisfied first. The Deputy Collector over‑ruled the objection and re-granted the land to the respondents on harap tenure. The petitioner went in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur, who upheld it in terms of Government Policy Letter No. 4785‑F/51, dated 24th December 1952, and granted the disputed land to him. The respondents preferred a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, who accepted it in the following terms, which clearly are contrary to the Government directives:‑ "According to the land grant policy in katcha tract no doubt preference is to be given to the D. K. holders, but in the present case when the land was being granted to the appellants during the years 1960‑61, 1961‑62, the respondent had not objected to it. Since the land was granted to the appellants during the year specified above, they must have improved the land. At least one of the appellants is a hari of the land as explained by the S. T. It will, therefore, be unfair to snatch away the improved land from landless haris of the deh. The D. K., right of the respondent if any should be satisfied from land which is available elsewhere in the deh."

3. I am afraid I cannot uphold the Additional Commis sioner's order. Government Policy Directive of 24 of the December 1952 is clear that after satisfying the demands o Forest Department the remaining katcha land should be dispose of‑ (a) towards satisfying in the claims of the Zamindars for D. K. rights in the same deh first. It is specifically laid down that they should be given cultivable land up to the extent of their cultivable kabuli land eroded in a compact block as far as possible; and (b) after the D. K. rights of khatedars have been satisfied the remaining should be leased to haris or small khatedars up to 30 acres of cultivable land in each case.

4. In the present case, Government Letter No. 4785‑F/51 dated 24‑12‑52 clarifies that PKM rights continuing on or before 24‑12‑52 alone can have preference over (b) above. This would mean that a successful PKM rights could be staked only by a person having two years cultivation out of 5 preceding 24‑12‑52 vide paragraph 3 (i) of S. O.

10. Moreover, it has been established that the petitioner did not raise objections to the respondents' being granted the piece in dispute in 1960‑61, since his D. K. rights had been satisfied that year and the respondents' claim to have been cultivating as haris of the land for the previous eight or nine years. It was in 1961‑62 that the petitioner's land was eroded to the extent of ten acres and it was in that year that they objected to the regrant in the respon dents' favour by reason of their unsatisfied priority D. K. rights. The learned D. C. order was perfectly correct. There was no authority for the view expressed by the D. C. or the learned Additional Commissioner that D. K. rights should be satisfied from new area thrown up by the river instead of from the cultivated area. I have no doubt that all these wrong notions creep in, because officers do not take the trouble to refer to Government's clear cut policy directives and thereby expose petty haris and small khatedars in having to file appeals and revisions in order to seek redress.

5. This being the position I must uphold the order passed by the learned D. C. Sukkur in so far as the previous year is concerned. As the year has expired the effect of this view will be that the petitioner will be entitled to the landlord's share of the crop, after deduction of any lease money etc., which the respondents may have paid. His revision is accepted accordingly. The order of the learned Additional Commissioner are fit for reporting set aside and that of the D. C. Sukkur restored.

6. In so far as the current year is concerned, it has been claimed on behalf of respondents that new area to the extent of fifty acres has been thrown up by the river. If this is so and at least ten acres of that land is cultivable, the petitioner's D. K. right can be satisfied out of that. In that event there would be no objection to the respondents being re-granted the ten acres piece in dispute as haris. S. Q. Petition accepted.