1. ' The facts relevant for the disposal of this revision application are that land measuring 71 Kanals and 15 Macias comprised in various Khasras and Kathas was sold by Said Rasool in favour of Umar Ali respondent No, 1 herein. This sale transaction was pre-empted through two suits, one by Hamzullah Khan and the other by Nadan Shah. Both the suit were consolidated by the learned trial Judge who after contest between the parties decreed the suit of Hamzullah Khan as regards Khasras Nos. 785, 777, 1098/782/783 whereas the suit of Nadan Shah was decreed by him as regards Khasras Nos. 557 and 558.. Against the judgment of the learned trial Judge three appeals were filed in the District Court, two by the rival pre-emptors and one by vendee. The appeals were heard by the learned Additional District Judge who by one judgment dated 9-1.1978 dismissed the pre-emption suits of the two pre-emptors and allowed the appeal of Umar Ali vendee. Thereafter Hamzullah Khan filed revision application in this Court against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge. The revision application was heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court who set aside the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge as regards Khasras Nbs.
2. 1098/782/783, 777 and 785 and remanded the case to the learned Additional District Judge with direction to find out whether in spite of the transfer made by Hamzullah Khan plaintiff, be is left with any interest in the property comprised in Katha No, 17 and in this behalf if necessary the Patwari may again be examined.
3. ' It will thus be seen that the learned Single Judge set aside the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge as regards Khasras Nos. 1098/782/783, 777 and 785 and as regards other Khasra numbers, his judgment was upheld. After remand the learned Additional District Judge complied with the above direction of the learned Single Judge of this Court and thereafter he accepted the appeal of Umar Ali respondent/vendee as regards the aforesaid Kbasra numbers and dismissed the suit of Umar Ali plaintiff, vide his judgment dated 25-6-1980. Hamzullah plaintiff still fells aggrieved, therefore, he bad moved the present revision application before this Court.
4. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Now Hamzullah plaintift has based his pre-emptive claim on the ground that he is co-sharer in the aforesaid Kbasras Nos.
5. 1098/792/783, 777 and 785. A look at the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge will show that he had traced the history about these Khasra numbers in the light of the revenue record. He pointed out that originally Kbudadad and Hamzullah plaintiff jointly owned the land comprised in the said Khasra numbers and no other person is recorded as co-owner. Both Khudadad Khan and Hamzullah alienated their entire joint land in the laid Khasra numbers in favour of the Central Government and entries in this behalf were made in the cultivation column of the Jamabandi. This position is not controverted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner. Now as Khudadad and Hamzullah plaintiff/petitioner alienated their entire land in the said Kbasra numbers in favour of the Central Government it would be obvious that they were left with no interest therein. In other words, after the alienation of the land in question, neither Khudadad nor Hamzullah plaintiff/petitioner could claim any share therein. In the events that happened, the Central Government transferred the land in the aforesaid Khasras in favour of Said Rasool Khan by means of Mutation No, 1260 attested on 22.12-1965 and Said Rasool Khan in his turn sold the land to Umar Ali respondent/vendee by means of the impugned mutation. As pointed out above the plaintiff has claimed his right of pre-emption to the land in the said Khasras on the ground that he is co-sharer in the same but his claim in his behalf is contradicted by the revenue record because he had alienated his entire share in the said Khasras in favour of the Central Government faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that his client is co-sharer in Khata No, 17 which covers the said Khasra numbers. His submission, therefore, is that being a co-sharer in the same Katha the pre-emptive right of the petitioner should prevail. This aspect of the case has also been considered by the Additional District Judge. He observed that it is obligatory on the plaintiff to prove that he is co-sharer in the land sold and not in the other land which may be forming part of the same .Katha maintained under the Land Revenue Act. I observe that even if a person exclusively owns a specific land in the same Katha, he cannot succeed in his pre-emption suit on the ground of co-sharership in the same Katha unless he is able to show that he is co-sharer in the suit land or his land is contiguous to the suit property or he is participator in immunities and appendages qua the suit land. The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that his client does not satisfy any of these conditions. Thus the learned Additional District Judge has rightly found that the petitioner is not co-sharer in the said Kbasras and as in other respects he also failed to satisfy the condition laid down by the law of pre-emption, his suit was rightly dismissed.
6. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that this revision application fails which is dismissed with no order as to costs.