' These are four identical revision petitions against the order, dated 16-6-1976, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, whereby he set aside the order of the C.O., Sukkur Barrage, dated 19-4-1973, granting land to the petitioner as shown below on Harap conditions :- Name of petitioner- B. Nos. Situated.
I. Karamali 85/1 to 4 Deh Khature, Taluka Math, Distt. Badin.
2. Dodoo 82/1 to 4 -do-
3. Imam Bux 52/2and -do- 49/1, 2, 3 & 5 4, Dann 43/1 & 4 -do-
2. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the relevant papers.
3. The disputed land was initially granted to the respondent in 195758. The land remained uncultivated all along. The grantee defaulted in it the payment of instalments due in respect of the grant in question, However, ' The period for payment of instalment was extended at the request of the respondent upto the- year 1972. All the same, the grantee persisted in default in payment of the instalments. The grant was therefore, cancelled and the disputed land was subsequently granted to the petitioner by the C.O., Sukkur Barrage on 19-4-1973. Against this order, the respondent preferred appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad in 1976, which was accepted, vide the impugned order with the directions that if the respondent failed to pay the instalments by 19-6-1976, it would be open to the C.
0. Sukkur Barrage to initiate fresh cancellation proceedings. Apparently the respondent again failed to avail of this concession also as the counsel for the respondent is not able to prove that instalments were duly paid by 19-6-1976.
4. It would, therefore, be material to note that the respondent was not interested in the land eversince its grant to him in 1957-58 and throughout this period he has not paid the reiuisite instalments towards this grant though the shifting of instalments was allowed to him upto 1972 and further it was extended upto 19-6-1976, vide the impugned order.
5. The plea that notice was given to the grantee before cancellation of the grant by the C.O., Sukkur Barrage does not hold good in the circumstances of the case because the grantee had express knowledge abotit the consequences when he was first allowed shifting of the instalments upto B 1972. The shifting of instalments is a concession afforded to the grantee under certain circumstances which tantamounts to a constructive notice of the intended action that the grant would be liable to cancellation if the grantee fails to carry out his obligations.
6. In view of this position, there is no justification to revive the grant of the respondent. The disputed land was already granted to the petitioner by the C.
0., Sukkur Barrage. There is thus no necessity of disturbing the grant of the petitioner as envisaged in the impugned order.
7. In result the revision petition is hereby upheld and the grant restored to the petitioner.