' This is an appeal against the order, dated 5-7-1969 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad (Mr. Hussaini Kutib Ali Shah) whereby he dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding grant of Bhada land in Deh Tajpur, Taluka Hala, District Hyderabad.
2. The facts of the case are that a Bhada land measuring 38-11 Acres in Deh Tajpur was granted to the respondent by the A. R.
0., Sukkur Barrage, vide his order, dated March/April, 1962. The petitioner preferred an appeal against grant of the Bhada land, which was in the Mohag of S. Nos. 122 and 123 to the respondent but the appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, vide the impugned order on the grounds that the petitioner was absent on the date of hearing and that the grant was made to the respondent in 1962/63 and appeal had been filed on 19-4-1969.
3. The counsel for the petitioner urged the following points:-
(i) The entire Bhada measuring 48.00 Acres had been granted to the respondent in 1962-63. The petitioner had no knowledge about disposal of the land to the respondent. He used to go to the office of Barrage Mukhtiarkar since 1961 for the grant of 20 Acres out of the Bhada land but was informed by Tapedar that there was ban on disposal of the land and that the petitioner came to know about the grant only in 1969.
(ii) The petitioner owned S. Nos. 122 and 123. He had purchased these Survey numbers from Noor Muhammad, vide a Registered sale-deed, dated 28-12-1960. The disputed land was adjacent to S. Nos. 122 and 123. The petitioner was Hari. He claimed the disputed land as Hari as well as on the ground that the land was adjacent to his Kabuli holding. Respondent was a rich man. He had no land adjacent to the disputed land. S No, 174 and others on the Mohag rights of which the disputed land had been granted to him belonged to his father. The petitioner had preference over the respondent for grant of the disputed Bhada as he was a Hari, vide PLD 1963 W. P.
87.
4. The respondent contended that the petitioner had purchased S. Nos. 122 and 123 and he had no Mohag right from sons and had his disputed land. He further contended that he had developed the land with heavy cost and that all the land owners of adjacent land including Noor Muhammad the original owner of S. Nos. 122 and 123 had surrendered their rights in the Bhada land in favour of the petitioner and that the appeal of the petitioner was time-barred.
5. The counsel for the petitioner was asked to establish point that the petitioner had been applying for the land since 1961 and also to state if he claimed Mohag right over the disputed land. He stated that the petitioner had been appoaching the Tapedar for the grant of the land also made two applications for the purpose but he had no proof in support of his contention. He also stated that the petitioner did not claim Mohag right over the disputed land but claimed it as being a Hari.
6. I have considered the arguments put forth by the parties and seen the record. The disputed land was granted to the respondent by the A. R.
0. Vide his order, dated 9-4-1962 on the basis of Mohag right of s. Nos. 176, 132, 131, 130 and others of the Deh.
' The file shows that the following land-owners of the adjoining lands gave their no objection to the grant of the disputed land to the respondent, vide their statements, dated 24-3-1961 before the Barrage Mukhtiarkar.
Hyderabad.
Name of the land owner. S. Nos. Held by him. Haji son of Muhammad ... ... 124 Muhammad Usman son of Muhammad Soomar ... 114 and 115 Noor Muhammad son of Allah Bux ... 127, 128, 122, 123; 131, 132 Lakhanoo son of Abhore ... 111, 129 and 130.
Nawab Muhammad Sadiq ... 120 and 121.
7. Notices were also issued to the Mohagdars Nawab Muhammad Jan, allottee Muhammad Ayoub, Shahdad Khan and Muhammad Sadik if they had any objection to the disposal of the Bhada land but there is no objection from them on the record. The counsel for the petitioner had purchased the land from Noor Muhammad in December, 1960, the petitioner should also have been consulted for the disposal of the land. According to the land grant papers the Barrage Mukhtiarkar, Hyderabad, had called for the copies of extract of Record-of-Rights in respect of the adjoining lands from Mukhtiarkar, Hala, and according to the extract of the Record-ofRights supplied to him, Mst. Salihan wife of Noor Muhammad was shown as owner of S. No,
123. There is no mention of S. No, 122 in the extract. I have seen village Form VII. The mutation in respect of S. Nos. 122 and 123 was entered in the record on 11-5-1961 and obviously the Revenue/Barrage authorities were ignorant about the petitioner having purchased the land. In any case, the petitioner has failed to establish that he had ever applied for grant of the disputed land. He could not indicate that he had made any effort to purchase the land earlier than 1969.
The grant was made to the respondent 7 years ago. In the meanwhile the respondent to whom the land was given in 1962-63 by A. R.
0. On the basis of Mohag right are stated to have spent considerable amount on the development of the land. According to instructions, Mohag rights is recognized in respect of land held for 10 years prior to the date of grant in the Sukkur Barrage. The petitioner purchased S. Nos. 122 and 123 in December, 1960, and no Mohag right in respect of these S. Nos. Had, therefore, accrued to him at the time the disputed land was granted to the respondent. The petitioner had relied on his claim as a Hari who could be given preferential treatment over the respondent who is said to be a big Zamindar. According to instructions governing disposal of Bhada land, the land is disposed of on Mohag right and no preference is given to the Hans. If the petitioner wanted to claim any right, he should have come earlier than respondent. There is no justification to interfere with the grant after lapse of 7 years.
8. There is no merit in the revision petition and it is, therefore, dismissed on merits as well as on the ground that the appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad was time-barred.