' This is an appeal against the order, dated 30-1-1969 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondent party and directed that the lease for 5 years of an area of 9-14 Acres from U. A. No, 232 of Deh Bandha should be disposed of by auction.
2. The facts of the case are that the disputed land was leased out for 5 years to the petitioner with effect from Kharif, 1968-69 by the Colonization Officer, Sukkur Barrage, Hyderabad (Mr. Hussaini Kutib Ali Shah) vide his Order No, LG/2I84, dated 6-3-1969. The respondent preferred an appeal to the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, who accepted the same partly vide the impugned order and directed that the lease of the land be disposed of in auction in accordance with the policy of the Board of Revenue.
3. The counsel for the parties urged the following points :- A. Counsel for the petitioner.-
(1) The disputed land is very small. It was first granted to the petitioner on Yaksala and thereafter on 5 years' lease. The petitioner had developed the land and is in his cultivation possession.
' OD About 34-0 Acres were purchased by the respondent out of the area of U. A. No, 108 and there remained only the disputed area which was sand dunes and was developed by the petitioner.
Since the respondent had taken up all the other land and had left this portion, it was clear that he was interested in the disputed land. The respondent had also paid price in respect of only 20-0 Acres although an area of 34-0 Acres stood granted to him.
(iii) The lease was for 5 years, 4 years have already expired. It would not be justified to disturb the petitioner at this stage. The counsel for the respondent challenged the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has been granted 34-0 Acres and the counsel for the petitioner referred to a copy of Register Haqdaran attached by him with the appeal. The copy attached by the counsel for the petitioner is not a certified copy and no reliance can, therefore, be placed on it. B. Counsel for the respondent.-
(i) 3-0 Acres out of U. A. No, 232 already stand granted to the respondent and he has, therefore, preferential claim over the disputed land.
(ii) U. A. No, 108 consisted of vast areas of sand dunes. The respondent had developed the areas from time to time and he had been granted about 26-0 Acres of the land out of it on the basis of development made by him. The respondent has paid price in respect of the entire area which stood granted to him.
(iii) The lease was granted to the petitioner without any publicity. The petitioner is a big Zamindar.
4. I have considered the arguments of the parties. According to para. 16 of Standing Order 'No, 10- Part-II the procedure as regards leases has to be the same as has been prescribed for sale of the land and accordingly the proper publicity is very essential before the land is leased out. In the present case, it appears the land was leased out to the petitioner without any proper publicity.
Besides the parties in the case are men of means and they can afford to take up the land in auction. Under these circumstances, the order of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, is quite justified and I do not see any reason to interfere with it. The petitioner has, however enjoined the lease for some period and as such lease money may be recovered from him proportionate to the period, he has remained in possession of the land. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed.