' This is a revision petition against the order dated 14-1-1978 of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, whereby he rejected theappeal of the petitioners against restoration of the grant comprising of S. No, 431 and others of Deh Gujo Amro, Taluka Sujawal to the respondents.
2. The petitioners request for adjournment on the ground that their counsel has not come. The counsel for the respondents has put in an objection application against any more adjournment.
There had already been several adjournments in the case and there was no justification for more adjournment. The request for adjournment was, therefore, refused.
3. Heard the petitioners Ladho and Noor Ahmed and the counsel for the respondents. The counsel for the respondents has produced the statements affidavits of the following petitioners duly attested by the Mukhtiarkar, Sujawal withdrawing their petition in favour of the respondents. {{TABLE}} Tusino son of Umer Sand. Affidavit dated 9-10-1.978.
Mamoon son of Umer Sand -do- Ahmed son of Ali Amro Statement dated 13-4-1978.
Nooro son of Basar Chandio Affidavit dated 31-5-1978.
Alu son of Waroo Muchero Statement dated 21-3-1978. {{TABLE}} ' Out of the above five persons, Nooro, Muhammad is present today and claims not to have withdrawn the.Petition. His affidavit of withdrawal -s duly attested by a Magistrate. However, he has also been heard.
4. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the land has been in their possession since much before its auction in favour of the respondents and that they wanted to contest in the auction but were dodged by the authorities and they could not record their bids in time. They contend that the respondents had taken up the land at cheaper rates and had not brought the land under cultivation and cancellation of his grant was quite justified. They argue that they only wanted the land which is in their possession and the order of restoration of the grant of the respondents was not proper and be set aside. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents contends that the land had been cancelled without due notice to the respondents and the cancellation of the grant was in violation of para. 14(3) of the Land Grant Policy and section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912.
5. I have considered the case. The land was disposed of to the respondents in auction in 1960-61.
Any plea against the auction at this stage is not entertainable. Besides, the land reserved for disposal in auction was not available for grant on Harap basis and as such the petitioners had no cause for action even on that account. The order dated 24-8-1976 passed by the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad restoring the grant to the respondents is quite elaborate. There has not been any deliberate default on the part of the respondents which may call for out of right cancellation of their grants. Besides there could not be any cancellation of the grant without prior notice in the terms of section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and the cancellation of the grant was not, therefore, maintainable.
6. For the above reasons, there is no merit in the revision petition, which is rejected, if however, the usual tenancy rights of the petitioner petitioners, if any, are at stake, they can agitate the point of tenancy in the Court of Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the relevant law of Tenancy.