' This is a revision petition against the order dated 28-12-1976 of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and maintaining the order of Assistant Commissioner, Desert.
2. Facts are given in the impugned order and need not be reproduced.
3. Heard the Advocates for the parties. The main contention of the Advocate for the petitioner is that the land under dispute was purchased by the ancestors of the petitioner through registered sale deed as far back as in 1893. Since then the descendants are in cultivating possession of the land under dispute. The Revenue Authorities did not change khata during all the period despite the fact that they were bound to change the khata on the basis of registered sale deed for which the Sub-Registrar must have sent Fard to the Mukhtiarkar.
4. The Advocate for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the sale is saki to have taken place in 1893 if the sale-deed was proper and genuine, the Revenue Authorities must have made entry on the strength of Fard if at all Fard was sent by the Sub-Registrar. Moreover, from 1893 down to 1965 i,e, for full 70 years, the petitioner as well as his ancestors remained silent. Therefore, the Revenue authorities were not competent to effect mutation on the authority of such registered sale deed.
5. I have heard the, arguments of the Advocates for both the parties and send the record. It is really surprising that the petitioner as well as his ancestors remained silent for nearly 71 years. It is correct that in case of registered sale deed the Sub-Registrar sents. Fard to the Mukhtiarkar. It is not known whether Fard was sent in this case or not. If the sale was genuine, the petitioner or his parents would have approached the Revenue authorities to make entire on the strength of registered deed after nearly 70 years. It is for the civil Court to decide the question of little and to determine the extent to which such sale deeds are accepted. In view of these facts I find no reasons to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower Court. Revision is accordingly rejected.