1. ' This is an appeal filed against the order of Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division dated 18- 10-1981, whereby he cancelled five years lease of the petitioner and ordered that it should remain for assaish of the village Urs Machi.
2. ' The petitioner and the respondent are present alongwith their Advocates.
3. ' Brief facts of the case are given in the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division and need not be reproduced.
4. The main contentions of the Advocate for the petitioner are that entire area of 10-10 acres does not fall within 20 chains of the village Urs Machi. He further contended that according to the conditions land down in the policy that the land which falls within 20 chains of village is to be reserved for village assaish and the area out side the 20 chains is to be disposed of. Therefore the order of Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad reserving the entire land of the petitioner for assaish in against policy. He has not be able to substantiate his contention through any documentary proof.
5. ' The Advocate for respondent argued that entire grant of the petitioner is within 20 chains of the village Urs Machi, and the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad has rightly reserved the entire area of the petitioner for assaish of village.
6. ' I have heard the counsel of both the parties and considered their arguments carefully. Perused the relevant record and the report of the Assistant Commissioner, Shandadpur, which was summoned in this case. From the perusal of the report of the Assistant Commissioner, Shandadpur is appears that entire S. No,. 289/2, 3 and 4 area 10-10 acres falls within 20 chains of the village Urs Machi and no other land is available which could be granted to the petitioner.
7. ' In view of the above facts 1 find no reason to interfere with the order of Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad.
8. ' The revision petition is accordingly rejected.