' This is a revision petition against the order, dated 2-4-1975 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad whereby he had rejected as time-barred the appeal of the petitioner against grant of an area of 8 Acres from U. A. No, 53, Deh Parkharki Taluka Badin to the respondent on Harap conditions from Rabi 1968-69.
2. Heard the counsel for the parties. The land was granted to the respondent in the year, 1968. The petitioner agitated against his grant in the year 1972. His petition was dismissed as time-barred by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, vide the impugned order. The counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the land had been granted to respondent, without any publicity and the petitioner had no earlier knowledge about its disposal. He also contended that the respondent was not a genuine Hari, he had plots in Talhar Town and was not eligible for grant of the land. In support of his contentions he produced (1) a copy of order, dated 12-2-71 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue in S. R.
0. R. No, 155 of 1969-70 Shafi Muhammad v. Abdul Wahid, wherein he had given his finding that Abdul Wahid was not a Hari, and (2) Certificates from ex-Chairman Town Committee that the respondent is resident of Talhar Town. On the other hand counsel for the respondent produced a copy of order, dated 1-1-1973 passed by predecessor (whereby he had reviewed his order, dated 2- 2-1971) and agreed that in view of this order, the findings given in order, dated 2-2-1971 had no force. He also contended that the land had been disposed of to the respondent in open Katchery in 1968 and the petitioner had full knowledge about it; so much so that the Shafi Muhammad had agitated against his grant at that time but the petitioner chose to remain silent. The counsel further argued that if the petitioner had any right or claim or was aggrieved with the grant, he should had come against it at the proper time and there was no ground for condonation of the delay.
3. I have considered the case. The appeal of the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner was obviously time-barred. There is no adequate justification for the delay. It is not advisable to look into the property or legality of grants after lapse of a number of years particularly when the parties chose to remain mum for a considerably long period. The limitation is the vested interest of the parties and cannot be ignored without proper justification.
' In view of this position, there is no justification for interference with the grant of the respondent.
The revision petition is accordingly rejected both on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits.
Revision rejected.