| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1963 SLG 3276 = 1963 SLD 3276 = 1963 PLD 78 |
West Pakistan
Revision No. 238 of 1961-62, decided on 8th March 1963, District Khairpur.
Presented By: A. M. Khan Leghari, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
Ghaus Ali Shah for Petitioners. Ali Morad for
Respondent.
Revision No. 238 of 1961-62, decided on 8th March 1963, District Khairpur.
Presented By: A. M. Khan Leghari, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
Ghaus Ali Shah for Petitioners. Ali Morad for
Respondent.
KALANDAR BUX AND ANOTHER-Petitioners
VERSUS
MEENHAL-Respondent
Law:
Section:
Government land------ ---Grant of-12 acres minimum on same crater course. ORDER This is a joint revision petition from Kalandar Bux and Imam Bux against the order dated 28-2-1962 of the Additional Commis sioner, Khairpur Division, whereby he rejected their appeal against the order of the C. O. Sukkur Barrage upholding the order of the A. R. O., Khairpur and granting an area of 1 2 acres from U. A. No. 89 of Deh Nangreja Taluka Kotdiji to the respondent Minhal from Kharif 1959-60. The main contention, basic to this entire case, is whether or not the grant of thetwelve acres in dispute was made surrepti tiously or after due publicity. As I had found the Additional Commissioner's order quite unintelligible, since in paragraph 3 he had mentioned that the entire area of 48 acres of this U. A. No. 89 was publicised through Schedules in November 1959, while in paragraph 1 he had upheld the grant made in favour of the respondent in May 1959, I called for a report from the Survey Superintendent, Kairpur. His report, dated 2nd Mardi 1963 shows that in accordance with the BOR's order of 1958, the entire area should have been publicised through Schedules, the grant in the respondent's favour, therefore, not having been publicised, cannot be upheld. It is strange how an officer, exercising the powers of a Commissioner can, in one paragraph state that the necessary publicity was made in November 1959 and at the same time uphold a grant made five months earlier, before the publicity through Schedules was effected. This extraordinary lapse has resulted in the parties totally unnecessarily coming to the B. O. R. The position ought to have been abundantly clear to the learned Additional Commissioner who ought to have accepted the appeal before him and remanded case back for fresh disposal. I think I should refer to another point mentioned in the learned Additional Commissioner's order. He has observed that: "As regards the question of subsistence holding, the disput ed land has been sanctioned in the name of the respondent Minhal from Kharif 1959-60 on…