' This is an appeal against the order dated 18-4-1973 passed by the Colonization Officer, Sukkur Barrage. Hyderabad whereby he granted S. Nos. 27-3, 4; 120/4, 5, 6 & 12 total area 12-00 acres of Deh Mangria Taluka Matli District Hyderabad to respondent Imam Bux on harap rights on permanent tenure.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that above-mentioned land was released through Schedule for disposal to landless Harts, small Khatedars and Mohagdars. The Colonization Officer, Sukkur Barrage after inviting applications from the interested persons granted the disputed land to the respondent in open katchery on 18-4-1973 vide the impugned order. Hence this appeal.
3. The counsel for the appellant mainly contends that the appellant who is Hari of the land in question, had applied for grant of the land but his request was not considered though he haS P.K.M.
Rights over the disputed land. The respondent has no preferential claim for grant of the disputed land. The name of the appellant is shown in the Khasra Girdawari register as a Hari during the year 1968-69 and as such he is entitled for grant of the land according to the policy. The name of the respondent has been inserted in the Khasra Girdawari register with the collusion of the village Staff.
4. The counsel for the respondent mainly contends that the land in dispute was disposed of, after wide publicity and through Schedule. No application for grant of land was made by the appellant to the Colonization Officer and as such at present he cannot claim his right for grant of the land.
The respondent had remained Hari of the disputed land right from 1968-69 upto date as this very land was being granted to one Yar Muhammad on lease and the respondent used to cultivate the same as his Hari. The necessary ljazatnama in favour of the respondents has been issued and initial deposit was made by the "respondent at the time of grant of the land. The appellant Ahmed is a student and he cannot be termed as a `hart' for the purpose t.)f Land Grant Policy. The counsel for the respondent further contends that the matter with regard to the same land was already agitated before the learned Additional Member where Imam Bux respondent was petitioner and Yar Muhammad lessee was respondent. The Additional Member vide his order dated 13-3-1972 has clearly held the respondent to be Hari and in cultivating possession of the land.
5. After hearing the arguments and perusing the documents produced by the counsel of the parties, I come to the conclusion that the respondent Imam Bux was bona fide Hari of the disputed land and he has rightly been granted disputed land by the Colonization Other in open A Katchery.
The perusal of the Khasra Girdawari further reveals that the name of Ahmed appellant has been inserted in the Khasra Girdawari Register in the year 1968-69 without attestation of the Mukhtiarkar and the entries with regard to the name of respondent have been attested and authenticated by the Mukhtiarkar and are genuine.
6. In view of the above I find no justification to interfere with the impugned order which is quite reasonable and elaborate. The appeal merits no consideration and is rejected.
Appeal rejected.