' This is a revision petition (wrongly shown as appeal) against the order, dated 17-8-1972 passed by the learned Land Commissioner, Sind, Hyderabad whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioner regarding resumption of an area of 86-0 Acres being in excess of the permitted limit under paragraph 10 of the Regulation.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioner purchased an area of 186-0 Acres in Deh Kumb Ranwati, Taluka Shikarpur, District Sukkur in open auction from Guddu Barrage authorities in 1963-64. The acquisition of interest/right in respect of the land was within the specific period as menlioned in para. 10 of the Regulation. Out of the above area the petitioner was allowed to retain an area of 100 Acres and the remaining area of 86 Acres being in excess of the prescribed limit was ordered to be resumed by the Deputy Land Commissioner. He filed an appeal before the Land Commissioner who after hearing the petitioner, rejected his appeal, vide impugned order.
3. The impugned order was passed on 17-8-1972 and this Revision petition has been filed on 28-9- 1972. According to rule 11(i) of the Sind Land Reforms Rules, 1972, the revision could be filed Within 20* days of the date of order and according to rule 12 of the said Rules, the period_ duly spent in obtaining certified copy of the order, has been excluded,. The counsel. For the petitioner contended that the case was fixed before Land Commissioner, Sind, Hyderabad on 1-8-1972 and he appeared on that date and argued the case. Thereafter the case was reserved for judgment and the same had been announced on 17-8-1972 without fixing up the date. He also contended that he had no intimation about the announcement of order, it is, therefore, wrong to say that he (counsel) was present on 17-8-1972. The learned Land Commissioner was requested to intimate the correct position. He (Land Commissioner), vide his Letter No, 19-LC/72-5533, dated 18-12-1972 has intimated that after hearing the arguments of the counsel on 1-8-1972 the case was postponed for announcement of orders on 17-8-1972 and parties were informed accordingly.
4. The order was announced on 17-8-1972 and the petitioner did not apply for certified c)py of the order unto 25-4-1972 and copy of the order was supplied to him on the same date. The petitioner, has preferred this revision petition on 1.8-9,1972. Thus, the petition is tune-barred, by one month and 8 days. The limitation provided in rule 11(1) of the Sind Land Reforms Rule. 1972 is prescribed by special law i,e, Land Reforms Regulation 115 and thus section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 is applicable. By virtue of the provisions of the said section, the section 5 of the Limitation Act do not apply and as such the delay in filing time-barred appeal/Revision under rule 11(0 ibid cannot be condoned. The petition is dismissed as time-barred.