Find a Lawyer

Case No. S.R.O.R.-67 of 1985-86, decided on 4th November,1985.

--- Para. 6(2)(3)--Grant of land--Exception--Land bifurcated from Kabuli land from village, held, would have exception from Land Grant Policy and being 20 chains from village site, could not be granted.

----S. 164 [as amended by Sind Land Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance (XI of 1980)1--Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of--Order passed by Additional Commissioner in exercise of suo Motu power under S.164, Act XVII of 1967, held, could not be called in question on application of party affected by such order.

Samoon J.P. of Bhimraj for Petitioner.

D.M. Lohano for Respondent.

Munshi Muhammad Khan Tapedar Revenue.

This is a revision petition preferred against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad dated 3-8-1985 whereby he on the reference of the Colonization Officer, Sukkur Barrage, Hyderabad bearing No. GB/HYD/4144, dated 2E-6-1982 cancelled the grant of the Bhada land of the petitioner admeasuring 0-38 Ghuntas being within 20 chains of village Kaka Deh Abri taluka Hyderabad.

2. Facts of the case are contained in the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner and need not be repeated.

3. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the case papers. Mr. Mashooq Ali Samoon, Junior Partner of Mr. Bhimraj, Advocate for the petitioner requested for adjournment on the ground that his senior is out of headquarter in connection with professional duties. Mr. Bhimraj himself on 23-9-1985 obtained the date of 28-10-1985 for hearing but he remained absent and sent adjournment application which was allowed and the case was adjourned for today i.e. 4-11-1985. Mr. Bhimraj has not come today and his junior partner has come with adjournment request. In the circumstance it was for the counsel for the petitioner to have made arrangement as the case was previously adjourned on his application. '

4. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the Additional Commissioner vide impugned order cancelled the grant of the petitioner on the ground that the land falls within 20 chains of village Kaka. The counsel argued that there is Kabuli S. No. 327 in between the village and the disputed land as such the purpose for reserving the disputed land for Asaish is not correct and as such the land could be granted. The counsel for the petitioner could not prove his contention with reference to the Land Grant Policy. In the Land Grant Policy 'there is exception for grant of land in case the disputed land is bifurcated by Kabuli land from the village. The revision petition of the petitioner is not maintainable as the Additional Commissioner has passed the order in exercise of his suo Motu powers vested in him under section 164 of the Sind Land Revenue Act, 1967 as amended and the order passed under section 164 of Act ibid are final.

5. I have considered the case. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Additional Commissioner has passed the order in. exercise of his suo Motu powers under section 164 of the Sind Land Revenue Act, 1967. According to proviso 2 to subsection (4) of section 164 of Sind Land Revenue Act, 1967 as amended vide Sind Land Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980 any order passed under this section cannot be called in question on an application of the party effected by such order.

6. For the foregoing reason, the revision petition is not maintainable and is rejected accordingly.

A.A Revision dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.