' This is a revision petition against the order, dated 14-10-1974 of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad whereby appeal of the petitioners was dismissed on the ground that it was not filed against judicial order.
2. The counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioners hold 4 annas share in S. Nos. 89 and 90 and the remaining 12 annas belonged to non-Muslims. The petitioners purchased 12 annas share from Shamumal in the year 1942 and such entry exists in Record-of-Rights i,e, "Hakan-JeYadashat" and that the possession is with petitioners till today. He further contends that, as the property, after its purchase, has become Muslim property, it cannot now be treated as evacuee and given in permanent settlement scheme.
3. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that the land was treated as evacuee property and utilited in permanent Settlement Scheme. The land was allotted to the claimant in satisfaction of his claim. There is also no entry in the record-of-rights regarding purchase of 12 annas share from Hindu by petitioners in 1942.On the contrary the record-of-rights only shows the entry relating to their 4-anna share. On the deatu of Mooso, the father of the petitioner, the Foti-iKhata was effected in the names of his heirs in 1954, from the share of 0-4-0 annas. Had the disputed share been purchased by the ancestor of petitioners in 1942, the Foti-i- Khata entry must have included the share of Mooso from this area in 1954. The counsel, therefore, urged that any entry thereafter made in the record is forged and managed one and cannot be relied upon. He further contends that the disputed land is an evacuee property for which Revenue Court are not proper forum to adjudicate upon. The petitioners therefore should seek remedy through proper forum.
Heard the counsel and perused the relevant record. The only entry] exists in the "Hakan-Je- Yadashat" and there is no other corresponding 'A entry in any revenue record. Hence the only entry in "Hakan-Je-Yadashat"1 cannot be treated as authenticated. Similarly for the land once declared as evacuee property and utilized in permanent Settlement Scheme the Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction on such property. The revision is accordingly rejected.