' This is an appeal against the order, dated 20-2-1973 of the R.
0. Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad whereby B. No, 133 of Deh Patihal, Taluka Tando Muhammad Khan was granted to the respondent A. Jabbar on Harap conditions.
' Facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellant was granted the above disputed land alongwith B. No, 134/1, 2 on Harap tenure from 1958-59. Due to infringement of conditions i. e., non- cultivation and non-residence of the appellant, the grant was cancelled by the R.
0. Vide his order, dated 26-6-1970 after serving the appellant with show-cause notice. Thereafter the disputed land was included in the schedule and was granted to the respondent in open Katchery, as the disputed land was on lease with him for two years. It is against this order that the appellant has come in appeal before this Court.
3. The counsel for the appellant contended that the latter was granted the above-mentioned land alongwith other land in 1958, and till today, he is in cultivating possession thereof. He further contended that the appellant had also paid an amount of Rs, 330 on 9-4-1970 towards instalment.
Therefore, the order cancelling the grant of the appellant is illegal, as no notice was given to him as required by law. The appellant had also raised objections in the Katchery but his request for grant of the land was not considered.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contended' that the appellant is a teacher and non-resident of the Deh. Besides in comparison to the appellant, the respondent is resident of Deh and is a self-cultivator. He further contended that the respondent is in physical and cultivating possession of the land as he had taken up its lease for two years continuously i. e. For 1971-72 and 1972-73. In support of his contention, he has produced original Ijazatnama issued by the Barrage authorities.
5. There being dispute of possession, the Mukhtiarkar Tando Muhammad Khan was asked to report the factual possession. He, under his letter dated 16-11-1973, has reported that the land in dispute had remained uncultivated during the period ranging between the years 1958-59 to 1970-71 and that at present the land is in possession of the respondent who had raised the paddy cultivation during 1972-73.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the record. It appears that the land was cancelled by the R.
0. From the Khata of the appellant due to infringement of conditions attached to the grant i. e., non-cultivation and non-residence on the land. The payment of Rs, 300 was made by the appellant before his grant was cancelled. It cannot however follow that his grant was not liable for cancellation due to this payment. The grant stands cancelled not due to the non-payment of instalment but on account of infringement of conditions attached to the grant.
7. On the other hand, the respondent is resident of the Deh and is Hari by profession. Moreover, land was on lease with him for 1971-72 and 1972-73 If the appellant felt aggrieved with the order in respect of lease grant to the respondent, he should have preferred an appeal in time against the lease grant. This clearly indicates that the appellant was not interested in the land, inasmuch as he did not even care to bring the land under cultivation from 1958-59 to 1970-71. In comparison to the appellant, the respondent is Hari and resident of the Deb and has brought the disputed land under cultivation. I, therefore, see no reason to modify the order of the Court below. The appellant has no case and his appeal is rejected.
Appeal rejected.