P L D 1963 W (PLP)

In this order I shall dispose of both the revision petitions against the orders, dated 28th March 1962, and 27th April 1962, of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division.

2. The facts are that the A. R. O. granted the disputed pieces of land measuring 15‑10 acres to the respondent from 1960‑61, the petitioner filed an appeal before the C. O. S. B., who in his order, dated 20th December 1960, revoked the A. R. O's grant in the respondent's favour on the ground that he had recorded his offer long after the prescribed date. At the same time he stated that the petitioner cannot be granted land either, as he has not recorded his offer. On further appeal the learned Additional Commissioner set aside the C. O's order on the ground that the respondent had offered for the land in question in the ordinary course and, there being no other con testant for it at the time the grant of the land offered for by him, was validly made to him by the A. R. O. He agreed with the C. O. that the Barrage Mukhtiarkar should not have enter tained the respondent's offer about three months after the schedule date, but observed that‑ " It is apparent that no other offer for the land in question was recorded until 28‑7‑60, when appellant Pandhi recorded his offer for it and it was accepted by the Barrage Mukhtiarkar and sanctioned by the A. R. O. If, therefore, there was any mistake, it was on the part of the Barrage Authorities and the appellant cannot be blamed for it at all. At the time that the offer was accepted and sanctioned by the A. R. O. there was no other aspirant for the same land. The appellant got the Ijazatnama after executing the agreement on 9‑9‑60 and the transaction was thus concluded in all respects. No infringement of any of the conditions of the grant has been reported, nor is there any patent illegality in the transaction except that the offer was recorded after the last date prescribed for the purpose." He, therefore, held that the Colonization Officer should not have interfered and cancelled the grant in the manner he did, particu larly as the petitioner was not in the picture at the time of the grant of the land to the respondent.

3. It is strange that the learned Additional Commissioner should have lost sight of the fact noted by him in the earlier part of the order that the petitioner who is a khanzada refugee from Alwar State, was allotted the land by the Rehabilitation Authorities on 17th January 1951, in the belief that it was evacuee property and has been in possession ever since. In the interest of natural justice and fairplay I have been insisting time and again that before the actual cultivator on ek‑salo leases in which category I would include the allottee by the Rehabilitation Authorities of the petitioner's category has to be dispossessed by sudden offering for the land, a notice ought to be served on him, unless there is reason to believe that he is already in the know of the fact that the land has been released. Even publicity through schedules is not enough, presumption of intimation to the ek‑salo lessees etc. in the circumstances obtaining in the rural areas of the Province. That this is so is clear from the hosts of appeals and out‑cries by local inhabitants, who had developed land on ek‑salo leases for the exclusion on of their holdings from the publicised schedules of Mechanised Farming lots. Both my learned predecessor Mr. S. M. Ikram and I have been admitting these cases on account of non‑service on the local right‑holders. The petitioner states that he never was informed that the land in his possession was State lard. Ever-since he came to know of it, he has been agitating in appeals and revi sions in order to save his family from being unrehabilitated for the second time. The unfortunate petitioner has even been mutilated of the sum of Rs. 1,000 presumably on account of Pagree in addition to Rs. 1,700 which has been recovered from him by the respondent on account of the initial deposit made by the latter in the Government Treasury in respect of the grant, these two and a third piece moreover, an instalment of Rs. 1,400 has also been got deposited from the petitioner by the respondent in his behalf for both these two pieces as well as the third piece an appeal in respect of which i3 said to be pending before the C. O. S. B. The petitioner states that Rs. 1,000 was recovered by the respondent for giving up his rights and claims in the three pieces in his favour. The respondent admits that he is a carpenter earning his livelihood through that trade, but claims that in the past he has for sometime been doing harap. He is unable to being any proof of harap. He admits having received all the above sums, but has put in an application that the Amins of the village before whom payment was made should be' summoned in order to say what the payments were for. I do not see any need to summon them. It was his duty to have' summoned or brought them if he wanted me to record their statements. After a cross‑examination of the parties I am satisfied that the petitioner is a truthful person and the respon dent is a shifty liar, who having rocked the unfortunate petitioner is trying to trouble him and to retain the land also. In my opinion, he deserves no quarter and having obtained the money he is estopped from raising issues to get the land as well. I am not prepared to help him in his nefarious game, unless he refunds the petitioner all that he has recovered from him by what would otherwise be fraudulent means. This he is unwill ing to do.

4. But quite apart from these payments, I must hold that even on merits the petitioner, who has been cultivating this'd land since 1951 has the first right to obtain the land, since he is a landless Hari cultivating it and having his home on it. In the circumstances, now that he has paid up the dues deposited by the respondent and also the instalments of Rs. 1,400 for the respondent. I would direct that he may be treated as the grantee of this land and the deposits and payments of instalments may be treated as having been made by him. This order will also apply to the third piece of land, about which an appeal is said to be pending with the C. O., who if he finds any difficulty, can treat the appeal is disposed of in this order or refer the case to me for orders.

5. In the result, therefore, both the revision petitions are accepted and the orders of the officers below set aside. The land in dispute, including the third piece, for which the appeal is said to be pending, is also ordered to be granted to him. K. B. A. Revision accepted.