' This is a revision petition against the order, dated 12-8-1976 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against grant of S. No, 336 of Tondo Ghulam Hyder, Taluka Tando Muhammad Khan.
2. The facts of the case are that the disputed land was granted to the respondent by the A.R.O., Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad, on Harap conditions. The petitioner preferred an appeal against that order and the same was rejected, vide the impugned order. Hence the present revision petition.
3. Heard the counsels for the parties. Both the parties concedes to the position that the petitioner is resident of the Deh and has an area of 10-0 Acres on his Khata while the respondent is a landless Hari of an adjoining Deh. Both the counsel claim that they had preferential claim over the grant of land -claim of the counsel for the petitioner is based on the ground that the petitioner is resident of the Deh and he deserves preference in terms of para. 4(c) of the policy, and claim of the counsel for the respondent is based on the ground that the respondent is a landless Hari and deserves preference in terms of the Note below para. 4 of the policy.
4. I have considered the case. The priorities for grant of land to Haris are contained in para. 4 of the Land Grant Policy. The case of the petitioner falls in category 4(c), being resident of the same Deh, while that of the respondent under para. 4(d), being resident of adjoining Deh, and as such the petitioner has preference over the grant of the land. The priorities mentioned in the note have obviously to be restricted to the respective categories. Within a categories landless Haris have preference over those who are owning land. The petitioner would thus have preference over the grant of land irrespective of the fact that he already owns some area in the Deh. In these circumstances, the revision vtition is upheld and the disputed land is granted to the petitioner on terms and conditions as adimissible in the Land Grant Policy.