' This is an appeal against the order, dated 30-6-1975 passed by the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad, whereby he had upheld appeal of the respondents in respect of grant of S. No, 283 and others of Deh Roonghadi, Taluka Badin.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondents had recorded offers in respect of the disputed land in the year 1970. Their offers were rejected by the R. O., Kotri Barrage, ride his order, dated 4-4-1973 In the year 1975 the respondents preferred appeal against rejection of their offers, which was upheld by the learned Commissioner, Hyderabad, vide the impugned order; hence the present petition.
3. Heard the counsels for the parties, the counsel for the petitioner urged the following points:-
(i) The appeal of the respondents before the Commissioner was time-barred.
(ii)The respondents are businessmen. They are not Hans. They are not eligible for grant of the land; and
(iii) No orders were passed on the offers of the respondents earlier and their case was not governed by the instructions contained in letter, dated 17-10-1973 of the Land Utilization Department. The respondents were neither eligible for grant of the land under old nor under the new land grant policy as they do not belong to Hari class.
4. The counsel for the respondents contended that actually the land had been sanctioned to respondents in the year 1970 when they had submitted their offers and paid the initial deposit and their case was governed by the instructions contained in Letter No, 360/73/9118-KB-I, dated 17-10-1973 of the Land Utilization Department and their grants were to be regularized irrespective of any other consideration about their status etc. He further contended that respondents had no knowledge about the orders passed in the year 1973 by the R.
0., Kotri Barrage, rejecting their offers earlier; they were not heard by the R. O. Before passing the order and they came to know about these orders only in the year 1975 when they received notices from the R.
0.'s Office in that respect. He also agreed that the petitioners had no right to prefer any petition in this case as they had not submitted any offers for the land and were not necessary party in the case.
5. I have considered the case. There is nothing on record to show that the offers submitted by the respondent were at any time sanctioned by the R 0. Or the land was at any time granted to them by the R.
0., Kotri Barrage. The only order disposing of their offers was passed by the R.
0. Kotri Barrage on 4-4-1973 whereby he had rejected their offers on the ground that the respondents had no reason to assume that the land stood granted to them. The instructions contained in letter, dated 17-10-1973 of the Deputy Secretary, L. U. Department do not envisage that the offers should be sanctioned irrespective of the status of the offers and irrespective of the fact that offers were not eligible for grant of the land under the land grant policy at that time. As a matter of fact there is nothing on record to indicate that the land was at any time granted to the respondents. Even if it was granted to them, the instructions contained in letter, dated 17-10-1973 of the Land Utilization Department do not envisage that the grants covered by those instructions were immune from scrutiny of the higher authorities if it was not in accordance with the provisions of the Land Grant Policy.
The order dated 4-4-1973 was passed by the R.
0., Kotri Barrage in general Katchery and in these circumstances it cannot be said that the respondents had no knowledge about it. Their appeal before the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, was, therefore, obviously time- barred. Even on merits, the respondents have failed to show that they were eligible for grant of the land. In these circumstances, the order of the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, upholding their appeal was not proper and is not maintainable.
6. In the above reasons, I uphold the appeal and direct that the land should be disposed of afresh in accordance with the provisions of New Land Grant Policy.