' This is a revision petition against the order, dated 5-1-1971 of the Learned Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, passed on administrative side, whereby the cancelled land measuring 4-14 Acres in Deh Sandho, Taluka Matli, borne in the name of Abdul Majid was allowed to be regretted subject to the payment of entire arrears of instalments, interest, and penal interest, within a period of three months.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent was granted B-No, 199/10 and 200/1 area 4-14 Acres of Deh Sandho Taluka Matli, on full rate conditions from Rabi 1937-38. Due to non-payment of the instalments the grant was cancelled from 1942.43. The respondent approached the authorities requesting that on account of his long illness he could not pay the arrears and is now ready to pay arrears with penal interest. The request of the respondent was allowed by the Learned Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, vide, his order cited above. Hence this revision.
3. The petitioner mainly contends that after the grant was cancelled from the Khata of the respondent, he recorded full rate offer on 28-11-1939 and paid the initial deposit which is still lying with the Barrage authorities. Subsequently the respondent offered on 31-1-1959. The request of both the parties regarding grant of land was refused as the land was full of pits and sandy dunes. The land all along has remained uncultivated. Since the offers of both the parties were pending as no one had received the initial deposit back, it was not proper for the Additional Commissioner, to allow the regrant.
4. The respondent, on the other hand, contends that the grant was cancelled from 1942-43 and since he was prepared to pay the instalments with penal interest and the land had not been disposed of to anyone the order of the Learned Additional Commissioner is, therefore, justified and may be maintained.
5. The Advocate for the respondent requests for adjournment of the case as the senior Advocate Kazi Abdul Rahim is busy before 1st Class Judge, Sanghar. It appears that on the last date of hearing i,e, on 22-2-1972 the case was adjourned on the request of the Advocate of the respondent.
I, therefore, see no reason to adjourn the case which is pending since 6-4-1971.
6. I have gone through the record and beard the arguments of both the parties. According to note below para. 10 (b) of Standing Order, it has been laid down as under.
"In case any offer is received for the land in question during the intervening period, the defaulter will be informed of it and given the right of first refusal provided, he has paid 3-4 or 5, instalments and is in arrears of not more than 2 instalments or has paid 5 instalments and is in arrears of not more than 4 instalments or has paid five or more instalments and is in arrears of not more than 4 instalments.
It has also been laid down vide para. 10(b) 2 that no cancelled grant which was four years old be regranted except on its individual merits such as payment of number of instalments or the grantee's straightening condition due to calamity of flood etc. Or the grantee being away from his land. It appears that the respondent's grant was cancelled from 1942-43 and his request for regnant was allowed by the Additional Commissioner in the year 1971 i,e, after lapse of about 29 years. 1 he case of the respondent is not covered by the instructions and orders in force. I, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Additional Commissioner, allow the revision with further directive that the land be disposed of afresh according to the new land grant policy which is going to be announced very shortly.