Find a Lawyer

Case No., SROR‑572 of 1977‑78, decided on 24th June, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 164‑‑Land Grant Policy, para. 6‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Cancellation of grant due to infringement of conditions of grant‑Cancellation of grant by Revenue Officer, held, would not be proper where no notice for cancellation thereof, was served on affected person‑While cancelling grant Revenue Officer also failed to take into view reasons advanced by petitioner relating to seepage and salinity in soil for non‑cultivation thereof‑‑Board of Revenue in revisional jurisdiction restored grant to petitioner without penalty.

Anwar Baig Mirza for Petitioner.

This is a revision petition which was filed against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, dated 11‑3‑1978 whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioner for restoration of his grant in respect of S. Nos. 48 and 49 area 32‑0 Acres of Deh Girari No., 1, Taluka Golarchi which was cancelled by the Revenue Officer, kotri Barrage, Hyderabad due to infringement of condition of the grant.

2. This revision petition was rejected by the then Member (Relief s Settlement), Board of Revenue, Sind vide order, dated 14‑6‑1978. The petitioner filed Constitutional Petition C.P.C. No. 1186 of 197& before the honourable High Court of Sind against the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue. The Honourable High Court, vide its judgment, dated 10‑4‑1984 has remanded the case back to the Board of Revenue, Sind for fresh decision.

3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the representative of the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad. The counsel has contended that the grant of the petitioner was cancelled without service of notice upon him as such the order of Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad was not proper. The counsel has also contended that the disputed land is still in his possession and is very much available for restoration.

4. I have confirmed from the representative of the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad that the land in dispute has not been disposed of to any other person by the barrage authorities. Further the cancellation of this land by the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad was not proper as no notice was served upon the petitioner. The representative of the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad who is present with record has also failed to produce the copy of notice served upon the petitioner. The reasons advanced by the petitioner for non‑cultivation which were seepage and salinity in soil were not taken into view as has been observed by the Honourable High Court in their judgment,

5. In view of the above facts, I here the grant in favour of the petitioner who should make full payment towards its price without payment of penalty within 3 months from today. The revision petition is accordingly allowed.

A. A., Revision accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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