' This is an appeal against the order dated 4-3-1978 of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad in respect of B. No, 636/1 to 4 area 16 acres of Deh Mari Wassayo, Taluka Golarchi.
2. The petitioner is present with his counsel Mr, Bhimraj. He has been heard.
3. The disputed land was granted to the appellant by Assistant Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad vide his order dated 8-2-1977 on harap conditions. Asghar Ali and Muhammad Rafiq preferred an appeal against that grant. The appeal was upheld by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad vide the impugned order to the extent that the grant of the appellant was cancelled and the land was ordered to be disposed of afresh. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has submitted the present appeal.
4. The grant of the appellant was cancelled by the learned Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, mainly on the ground that he is neither eligible Hari nor resident of the Deh. The counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is residing in the Deh since 1961 and that the land was previously on lease with his father and, therefore, the appellant was very much eligible to grant of the land. He has produced following documents in support of his contentions
(i) School certificate of the appellant from Headmaster, Middle School Golarchi.
(ii) Ijazatnama of lease of the land for the years 1968-69 to 1973-74 in favour of father of appellant.
(iii) A Form No, TM/G-73/I in favour of father of the appellant in respect of grant of S. No, 749 and 750 on Deh Mari Wassayo with effect from Kharif 1961-62.
5. The representative of the Revenue Officer, has produced the correspondence of his office whict shows that Muhammad Rafique and Asghar All had withdrawn from their request for grant of the land before the Barrage Muaitiarkar and as such they had no cause for action against its grant to the appellant.
6. In view of the documents produced by the counsel, it appears that the appellant has been resident of the Deh since 1961-62 and that the land had been on lease with his father. Besides Asghar All and Muhammad A Rafiq had themselves withdrawn from the contest and, therefore, there was hardly any justification for disturbing the grant of the appellant on their appeal.
7. For the above reasons, the appeal is upheld and the grant in respect of disputed land is restored to the appellant.