1. ' This is a revision against the order dated 7-4-1976 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Sub-Division who set aside the order of the Mukhtiarkar dated 26-11-1975.
2. The facts briefly are that S. No 403 admeasuring 3-9 acres of Deh Narejani, Taluka Hyderabad was sold tnrough registered deed by Zainiadar Zamirul Hasan, through his attorney Muhammad Ilyas to Abdul Majid on 19-1-1973. On 12-6-1974 joint application was made by Mst. Hava, Mst.
2. Amanat and otaers to the Ex-Chief Minister alleging hignhandeduess on the part of other party and also prayed that they may be given pre-emption right as they were this. This application was ultimately forwarded to the Mukhtiarkar who in his order dated 13-8-1974 allowed the application and permitted them to exercise the riga of pre-emption. Against that order the respondents Abdul Majid and Muhammad Ilyas went to the Assistant Commissioner who in his order dated 12-8-1975 allowed to only Haji son of Mirzo the right of pre-emption and rejected the right of others. When this decision of the Assistant Commissioner went for implementation to the Makhtiarkar for fixation of price and for mutation of record, he passed orders accordingly. Being dissatisfied with that order, Abdul Majid and Muhammad Ilyas went to Assistant Commissioner in appeal who upset the order of Mukhtiarkar and rejected the preemption right of Haji. It is against that order that the petitioners have come in revision.
3. ' The counsel for the petitioner contends that joint application dated 12-6-1974, regarding right of pre-emption was filed In time by petitioner including Haji. All the petitioners were declared as Harts by the Mukhtiarkar vide his order dated 13-8-1974. This was modified by the Assistant Commissioner in aveal under order dated 12.8-1975 declaring Haji as the only tenant of the land under .Dispute. There was, therefore, question of only implementation of the order of Assistant, Commissioner so far the mutation in the Revenue Record and fixation of price was concerned. The fact is very clearly mentioned in the order of the Mukhtiarkar dated 26-11-1975. No revision was filed by therespondents against the order of Assistant Commissioner passed on 12-8-1975. Hence that order became final. The order passed by the Mukhtiarkar was mere implementation of the order of Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, there was no question of filing appeal against the order passed by the Mukhtiarkar for fixation of the price and change in the Record of Rights. The Assistant Commissioner has thus exceeded his jurisdiction by revising the order passed by his predecessor.
4. ' The counsel for the 'respondents on the other hand contends that Mirzo, father of Haji, the petitioner was Hari of the land upto 1968. He died 6/7 years before this transaction. Hence his son Haji could not claim right of preemption. There was nothing on record to support the contention of Haji that he was Hari of the land after the death of his father. In fact, he is Hari of some other Zamindar, Gulsher who had made application for pre-emption right had withdrawn his right in fasour of the respondents. Haji was in full knowledge of the transaction but he failed to exercise his right within the stipulated period, he was barred from agitating his right at that belated stage. The subsequent order of the Assistant Commissioner was, therefore, quite correct.
5. ' I have gone through the orders passed by different Courts from time to time. The Mukhtiarkar did not pass order in favour of one Gulsher but he accepted the pre-emption right of the whole family on the application made by them to ex-Chief Minister. Mr. Masood Alam Rizvi, Assistant Commissioner, referred the case for arbitration but as arbitration failed, he visited the site and found that the land under dispute was cultivated. There were 25---29 trees of mangoes. The petitioner stated that the land was lying uncultivated due to shortage of water while previously the land was being cultivated by Mirzo and thereafter by one Gulsher. During his enquiry the Assistant Commissioner came to know that Haji was the Hari of the disputed land. He happened to be son of Mirzo. According to law the first right of pre-emption was to go to son. Since Haji was real son of deceased Mirzo he had preferential right over the land whereas Gulsher and others could not claim such right. He passed order accordingly giving right of pre-emption to HO only. When this order went for implementation to the Mukhtiarkar, he passed order as under :- "I, therefore, order that in view of right of pre-emption already established the Khata, in the name of opponent Abdul Majid be cancelled and the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs, 12,000 (sale price of the land) for payment to opponent. The Khata to be mutated in the name of the tenant applicant after payment of the said amount. The above order to take effect after the appeal period."
6. ' This order was nothing but implementation of the order of Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, if the respondents were dissatisfied with that order, they should have challenged the price and nothing beyond that. They could not request for re-opening the case so far as the pre-emption right was concerned. If they were dissatisfied with the original order that Haji had no pre-emption right, they should have preferred revision against the original order dated 12-8-1975, by Assistant Commissioner Mr. Rizvi. The learned Assistant Commissioner Mr. Shahid Niaz only exceeded his jurisdiction by reviewing the order of his prodecessor but even mis-stated certain facts. In second para. Of his order he has said that one Gulshe claiming to be Hari on the S. No, moved the for pre- emption right. Obviously this is not correct. In fact the application was made jointly by the whole family including even ladies to the then Chief Minister which travelled down to the Mukhtiarkar who decided the pre-emption matter. The position being such there arose no question of application being time-barred as held by him. The learned Assistant Commissioner was not right in holding that Mirzo himself remained silent till QuIsher's claim was finally rejected in appeal. In fact Mirzo died in 1968, It was, therefore, that his heirs were claiming the right of pre-emption. Whatever may be the facts, the legal point is very clear that the learned Assistant Commissioner had no powers to review the orders of his predecessor. This he has done in excess of his jurisdiction. The first order passed by the Assistant Commissioner which was not challenged by the respondents, is operative and is hereby maintained. The price fixed by the Mukhtiarkar is reasonable. The revision is accordingly allowed and the first order of Assistant Commissioner Mr. Rizvi is maintained.