' These are two revision petitions against the two identical orders dated 21-5-1978 of the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, whereby he rejected the appeals of the petitioners in respect of allotment of S. Nos. 7/4-5 and 8/1 to 7 area 2/0 and 7/0 acres of Deh Charib Fir Taluka Hallah respectively to the respondents Ramzan son of Abdul Rahim and Ghulam Muhammad son of Bachoo.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners were granted resumed land by the Assistant Land Commissioner, HaIla in open Katchery held on 6-12-1972 as under :- {{TABLE}}
(i) Ghulam Hussain 7/11, 8/1 to 7, 11, 12, 9/1, 2, 3 and 35/3=15-6 acres.
(10 Suleman. 24/2, 6, 1/1, 2, 23/1, 2, 6, 7 and 31/7 =14-35 acres. Respondents Ramzan and Ghulam Muhammad approached the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad against grants of these persons in 1975 and the Deputy Land Commissioner cancelled the grants of the petitioners to the following extent and granted the land to the respondents as under :- v.Am*orr. S. No, Previous grantee (peti- Name of the new grantee tioners) (respondents)
8/1 to 7 Ghulam Hussain Ghulam Muhammad 7/4 and 5 Suleman Ramzan The request of the respondents for grant of the following land, which also stood granted to the petitioners, was rejected by the Deputy Land Commissioner.
11. #TBS S. No, Grant (petitioners) #TBE Name of the respondents whose claim for grant of the land was rejected by D. L. C. ---------------------------- *.i.o.....
8/11, 12 Ghulam Hussain Ghulam Muhammad 7/4, 5 and /1,2 Suleman {{TABLE}} ' Aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed revision petitions to the Additional Chief Land Commissioner foregoing their right of appeal at the Deputy Land Commissioner, who hid passed the impugned orders was holding the charge of Land Commissioner at that time The revision petitions were heard by the then Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Sind, who vide his order dated 1-3-1977, set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner on the ground that the Deputy Land Commissioner was not competent to entertain time-barred appeals. The learned Additional Chief Land Commissioner, however, in exercise of his suo motu jurisdiction under rule 11 of the Land Reforms Rules, remanded the case to the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad for fresh decision about the maintainability of the grants of the petitioners. The Deputy Land Commissioner has, vide his order dated 9-10-1977, maintained the order already passed by the then Deputy Land Commissioner, in favour of the respondents. The. Petitioners filed appeals to the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad which were rejected vide the impugned orders, hence the present petitions.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and respondents in person. The counsel for the petitioners has argued the following main grounds :-
(i) The case was remanded by the learned Additional Chief Land Commissioner for a limited purpose that is for the purpose of examining the question of eligibility of the petitioners for grant of the land. Both the parties are Hans of the Deh and were eligible to grant of land in terms of the sale scheme. The respondents did not apply for grant of land in Katchery and were not, therefore, entitled to grant of the land while the petitioners had applied and were, therefore, rightly granted the land being eligible Hans of the Deh.
(ii) The fact that the grant of the petitioners in respect of remaining land in the same Deh had not been disturbed shows that they were eligible to grant of resumed land in the Deh. The provisions of sub-para. (6) of para. 13 of the Sale Scheme could not be invoked in such a case and the Deputy Land Commissioner had assumed in correct jurisdiction. The Deputy Land Commissioner could not entertain a time-barred appeal and the observations of the Deputy Land Commissioner in that respect which are contrary to the findings of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Sind, were erroneous.
(iii) The land was Banjar Qadim prior to its grant to the petitioners in 1972. The names of the respondents are not entered as Hari of the land anywhere in the record. They had no preferential claim over it. The petitioners had developed the land after its grant to them. The land is in their possession since its grant. The claim of the respondents is neither substantiated by facts nor by records.
(iv) The contention of the respondents that they had applied to the authorities prior to 1975, against grant of land to the petitioners had not been established and cannot be relied upon.
4. On the other hand, the respondents referred to the findings in the two orders dated 11-3-1976 and 9-10-1977 of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, and contended that they were sitting tenants of the disputed land and the land had righty been granted to them. They contended that they had been applying to the authorities even since the grant of the land to the petitioners and produced a simple copy of an application and an article in a newspaper against a T?Pedar in support of their contentions. They also alleged that the petitioners were private servants of Local Zamindars and were not eligible to grant of the land.
5. I have considered the arguments put forth by both the parties. The matter had already come up to the level of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Sind and he had remanded the case, vide his order dated 1-3-1977. The operative portion of the order reads as follows :- "In order to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the grants of the land made in favour of the petitioners, 1 admit revision on suo motu side under rule 11 of the Land Reforms Rules, 1972, and remand the same to the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad. He should hear both the parties and pass appropriate orders about maintainability of the grants of the petitioners strictly in accordance with the provisions of Land Refotms Regulation.'
' The facts that the petitioners are not Hari of the Deh had neither been urged nor established at any stage of the proceedings. Besides, the fact that same portion or their grants has been allowed to remain intact lends support to the plea of the counsel that the petitioners are tenants of the Deli and were eligible to grant of resumed land in the Deh in terms of para. 2 of the Sale Scheme. The provisions of para. 13(6) of the Sale Scheme could not, therefore, be invoked in this case by the Deputy Land Commissioner and his findings in that regard are not, therefore, proper. It had also not been established at any stage that the respondents had actually applied for grant of the disputed land in Katchery. The newspaper cutting shown by the respondents does not make any mention about respondents case. The copy of application shown by the respondents is simple one and cannot be relied upon.
6. In view of the above position, I am inclined to hold that none of the patties had any prior right to grant of the land as the land was Banjar Qadim prior to its grant and that both the parties are eligible Hans of the Deh but the petitioners have better right to its grant since they had applied for it in Katchery and the respondents did not apply for it. The land has remained in the possession of the petitioners since its grant to them and this position has also been conceded by the respondents before me. There is, therefore, no justification to disturb the grant of the petitioners at this stage. In the result, the revision petitions are upheld and the grants in respect of the disputed land are restored to the petitioner.