On 30-1-1974 five persons jointly brought; a suit to pre-empt the sale of some agricultural land.
They are respondents in this civil revision. Respondent No. 1 claimed that she was a legal heir of the vendors as well as an owner in the estate. Respondent No. 5 stated that he was a co-sharer in the khata of which the land in dispute formed a part. Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 based their superior right on the ground that they were tenants in the land in dispute. Respondents Nos. 2-and 3 further alleged that they were co-owners in the estate as well. The suit was still pending when on 19-5- 1976 the Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1.976 came into force. Section 6 of the Ordinance amended paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation; among other amendments it introduced the following provision as sub--paragraph (5) therein, namely :----- "All suits for enforcing the right of pre-emption in respect of land comprised in a tenancy shall be exclusively entertained, heard and decided by the Collector within whose jurisdiction the land in respect of which the right of pre-emption has been claimed is situated, and all such suits which may be pending in any Court immediately before the commencement of the Land reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976, shall on such commencement, stand transferred to the Collector concerned."
After the promulgation of the Ordinance the vendees moved an application before the trial Court that the suit be transferred to the Court of the Collector. This application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the suit before him was of a composite nature inasmuch as the pre-- emptors before him had founded their superior right on several grounds some of which could not be adjudicated upon by the Collector; further, the pre-emptors had jointly paid the court-fee on the plaint and in case the suit was split up it would create complications of limitation and court- fee. From the order of the trial Court the vendees have come in revision to this Court.
2. I may state here at the very outset that no arguments were addressed before me on the question whether so many persons basing their superior rights on different grounds could join together and bring one suit for pre-empting the same sale. I would therefore refrain from expressing any opinion in the matter.
3. It is to be noticed that under paragraph 25(3)(d) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 a tenant has been vested with the first right of pre--emption in respect of the land comprised in his tenancy.
In the event he chooses to exercise his right all other claims of preferential rights stand superseded.
This being so, the foremost question before the trial Court was whether respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were tenants in the land in dispute and if so, whether by virtue of the enjoyment of that status they were entitled to pre-empt the sale. In case the trial Court found in favour of the said respondent on both these points all other claims by the remaining respondents would become entirely irrelevant.
Now, consequent upon the insertion of sub-paragraph (5) in paragraph 25 of Land Reforms Regulation the trial Court was debarred from adjudicating upon the claim of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in so far as it was' based upon their status as tenants in the land in dispute. In fact by operation of the provisions of the said paragraph the suit automatically stood transferred to the Collector. The learned Court ought to have therefore sent the file to the Collector for deciding the claim of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to the extent that it was founded upon the assertion that they were tenants in the land in dispute.
4. I find little substance in the reason given by the learned trial Court that as all the respondents have jointly paid the court-fee and the law of limitation is likely to stand in their way it was not a case which could be transferred to the Collector. It may be noticed that if the suit of respon--dents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is decreed by the Collector that will be the end of the matter ; but, in case the claim of the said respondents is rejected by the Collector I can see no difficulty why the civil Court cannot proceed further and try the suit in respect of the other grounds upon which the respondent have founded their superior right.
5. For the reasons stated above I accept this civil revision, set aside the order of the learned trial Court and direct that the file be sent to the Collector for proceeding further in the matter. There will be no order as to costs in this civil revision.