P L D (PLP)

This is an appeal against the order dated 30‑1‑1971 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur, whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondent regarding grant of S. No. 660, Deh Dara, Taluka Kambar, to the petitioner.

2. The facts of the case are that the disputed land was granted to the petitioner by the colonization Officer, Sukkur Barrage, Hyderabad, on full rate condition from Kharif, 1969‑

70. The respondent preferred an appeal to the Additional Commis sioner, Khairpur, which was accepted vide the impugned order mainly on the ground that the land was disposed of to the petitioner without proper publicity and it was directed that the land should be disposed of afresh after due publicity and after informing the respondent.

3. The counsels for the parties urged the following points:‑ A. Counsel for the petitioner: (i) Appeal of Abdul Sattar before Additional Commissioner was time‑barred by more than 2 years and no plausible expla nation had been given for the delay. (ii) The petitioner had made improvements in the land and cancellation of the grant was not justified. (iii) The Chairman had issued the certificate about the publicity in the proper form as were issued by all other Chairmen in similar cases and it was not proper to discard the certificate in this case only. B.‑--Counsel for the respondent (i) The point of delay had not been raised by the other party before the Additional Commissioner and it was to be assumed that the Additional Commissioner had condoned the delay. (ii) The land was adjacent to his Kabuli land and as held in P L D 1963 W P (Rev.) 81, the petitioner had preferential claim over the disputed land and he should have been informed before disposal of the land. It was disposed of without publicity so much so that the father of the petitioner who was S. T. in Revenue Department also remained ignorant about its disposal.

4. The Barrage Head Munshi produced schedule of 1966 and the disputed land is included in Schedule No.

2. He also produced file about publicity of the land. According to the file the schedules were sent to Chairmen of all Union Councils by the Barrage Mukhtiarkar, Larkana under his No. 36, dated 20,2‑1966. The letter is in a cyclo‑styled form and in the end, there is a form of certificate in which the Chairmen has to submit certificates for the publicity made by them. The certi ficate about publicity in respect of the disputed Union Council is also in the same form. I have seen many other certificates from Chairmen of various other Union Councils also in same condition lying in the file. I also find that S. Nos. 697, 698 and 706 of the same deh were also disposed of on the basis of the same schedule and the same certificate of publicity given by the Chairman and the Barrage Head Munshi stated that grants in respect of these S. Nos. are in tact. The ruling referred to by the counsel for the respondent is not applicable in the present case as it applies to cases where the parties have a mohag right but in the present case the disputed land is more than 4‑00 acres and was not to be disposed of on the basis of mohag right and it was not, therefore, necessary to inform the mohagdars before disposal of the land. Under these circumstances, I do not see any reason why the certificate of the Chairman should not be relied upon only in this particular case and why a notice should be served on the respondent specifically before disposal of the land. The petitioner was granted land in the regular manner and the respondent had no preferential claim over it. There was, therefore, no justification to disturb the grant of the petitioner.

5. The land was granted to the petitioner in May 1969 and ‑the petitioner preferred an appeal against it to the Additional Commissioner on 19‑10‑1970. The appeal before Additional Commissioner was time‑barred by more than a year. No prayer had been made for condonation of the delay. The appeal before the Additional Commissioner, was, therefore, time‑barred and should have been dismissed as such.

6. In view of the above, the appeal is upheld and the order, dated 30‑1‑1971 passed by the Additional Commissioner is set aside. The grant of S. No. 660, Deh Dara, Taluka Kambar made to the petitioner stands restored to him. Appeal accepted.