' This is a revision petition (wrongly termed as an appeal against the order, dated 26-3-1970, passed by the Additional Commissioner; Hyderabad (Mr. Kutib All Shah Hussaini) whereby he rejected the petitioner's appeal regarding grant of two Badha pieces (2-0 and 1-0 Acres) in Mohag of S. Nos. 493/A & B and 494 of Deh Sandki, Taluka Tando Allahyar to the respondent.
2. The facts of the case are that 2-0 Acres out of disputed land were granted to the respondent by the A. R.
0. Vide his order, dated 7-12-1964 with effect from Rabi 1964-65 and one Acre by the Colonization Officer Sukkur Barrage, vide his order, dated 16-9-1969, with effect from Rabi 1969-70. The petitioner preferred two appeals against that grants to the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, which were rejected, vide the impugned order.
3. I heard the parties on 25-3-1971. The counsel for the respondent had submitted written arguments in the case as well. The main points agitated by the parties were as follows :- A-PETITIONER :
(i) The disputed land was in Mohag of S. Nos. 131/1, 2, A, 8 133/1,2, and 136/4 of Deh Thul held by the petitioner contiguous to the disputed land.
(ii) The petitioner had no knowledge about the disposal of the disputed land to the respondent in 1964 and as such he could not come against the grants earlier.
(iii) There was no bar in the standing order/rules debarring a land owner to claim Mohag right in respect of lands contiguous to his holding only on account of the fact that the land claimed is situated in another Deli. The disputed land formed part of the same Badha and the petitioner had preferential right over grant of the land. B-RESPONDENT :
(i) 2-00 Acres out of the disputed land had been granted to the respondent in 1964 and the petitioner had come against it in 1969. His appeal was, therefore, time-barred and had rightly been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad. There is no reason for condonation of delay. The respondent had developed the land with heavy cost. The respondent had paid full price of the land. There was no justification to cancel the grant.
(ii) The disputed land was situated in Deh Sandki and could be granted to the land owners of that Deli only. The petitioner had been granted badha land situated in Deh Thul. The Mohag rights do not extend beyond boundaries of the Deh.
4. I have considered the arguments put forth by the parties and seen the record. Two grants of 2-0 acres and 1-0 Acre were made to the respondent in the year 1964 and 1969 respectively. Each of the grant is discussed as follows :-
5. Grant of 2 Acres made in 1964.
(a) The disputed land was granted to the respondent on the basis of Mohag right of S. Nos. 493/AB and 494 of Deh Sandki, which were held by him as Kabuli S. Nos. These S. Nos. Were purchased by the respondent from Seth Nanikram and Lilaram, vide a registered sale-deed, dated 21-11-1963.
According to the standing orders, Mohag right can be claimed in Sukkur Barrage, in respect of only such Kabuli land which was held by the land owner at least for a period of 10 years prior to the date of grant. S. Nos. 493/A B and 494 were not held by the respondent for a period of 10 years at the time the disputed land was granted to him and as such no Mohag right had accrued to him in respect of the land at that time. Consequently, the disputed land could not be granted to him on the basis of Mohag right in respect of these S. Nos.
(b) The proper procedure for disposal of the land is contained in Circular No, R-9373-E(a), dated 20-7-1944 issued by the Secretary to Government of Sind, Revenue Department but the procedure does not seem to have been adopted before disposal of the land to the respondent. There is nothing on record to indicate that any notification was made or objections were invited before disposal of the land to the respondent.
(c) In absence of proper publicity about disposal of the land, the petitioner could hardly be expected to have knowledge about disposal of the land and as to what was happening about it in the room of Assistant Revenue Officer and as such the delay in preferring the appeal against the disposal could not be unjustified. As stated in paras. (a) and (b) above, the initial disposal of the land to the respondent was wrong and the wrong initially done is not rectified by passage of time.
6. Grant of 1-0 acre made in 1969.-
(a) The disputed land is contiguous to S. Nos. 131/1, 2-A, 8, 133/1,2 and 13614 of Deh Thul, which are ancestral property of the petitioner and his brothers and sister. They had applied for grant of disputed land but it was not granted to them only on the ground that the land was situated in another Deh. I had afforded full opportunity to the counsel for the respondent to show any authority or law, rules on this point but they have shown me none, except a copy of Order No, G/4611, dated 7-8-1963 passed by the Director, Settlement Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad. There is nothing in the order on the point. Besides, the order of the Director can hardly be taken as an authority on the point of grant of land. I do not find any force in the arguments that the Mohag rights are cut by boundary of Deh if otherwise the land is contiguous. The petitioner could not, therefore, be debarred from claiming the land merely on this account.
7. In view of above, I hold that the grants of the disputed pieces measuring 2-0 acres and 1-0 acre made to the respondent by the Assistant Revenue Officer in 1964 and by the Colonization Officer, in 1969 were not proper and they are, therefore, set aside. The land should be disposed of afresh after proper publicity strictly in accordance with the orders on the subject.