' This is a revision petition against the order, dated 30-6-1976 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad, whereby he upheld the appeal of the respondents and set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner who had allowed the petitioner Muhammad Laiq and Adloo to exercise their pre-emption right, in respect of S. Nos. 64 and 65 of Deh Bhanbhuri, Taluka Hala.
2. The revision petition was filed by the petitioner Muhammad Laiq against the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, before the Commissioner, Hyderabad. The Commissioner sent the revision petition to the Board of Revenue for adjudication on the ground that the Additional Deputy Commissioner passed the order as revisional authority on 30-6-1976 when such powers were not vested in him from 18-5-1976.
3. The facts of the case, as given by the Additional Commissioner in the impugned order are, that Muhammad Laiq and Adloo approached the Mukhtiarkar/Tribunal, Hala for revocation of sale transaction in respect of S. Nos. 64 and 65 sold by the claimants to the respondents Sultan and others. Adloo did not pursue the matter with the Mukhtiarkar and remained absent but the respondents admitted his tenancy over the disputed land before the Mukhtiarkar and denied that of applicant Laiq stating that he was himself Khatedar and lessee of the land. The Mukhtiarkar/Tribunal rejected the application being time-barred. This order was followed by appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Hala who held that the sale of subsistence holding by different deeds in piecemeal was invalid under the provisions of paragraph 24 of M. L. R.
115. That the sitting tenants made applications to the Sub-Registrar for non-registration of sale- deed in respect of disputed land. That the sitting tenants came to know of sale transaction when revenue record was mutated in the names of purchasers i. e. Sultan and others. The Assistant Commissioner further maintained that Adloo and Laiq were cultivating the disputed land for the last four years. Laiq was self-cultivating. Therefore, he rightly claimed pre-emption. As for delay in filing application for pre-emption right, the Assistant Commissioner stated that the possession of the disputed land all along remained with Adloo and Laiq who came to know about transaction when Khata was changed in the name of Sultan and others. The Assistant Commissioner accordingly set aside the order of the Mukhtiarkar, established tenancy of Adloo and Laiq over the disputed land, cancelled mutation made in favour of Sultan and others. Being aggrieved against this order, Sultan and others filed revision with the Additional Deputy Commissioner which was allowed by him, on the grounds given in the impugned order.
' The petitioner contends that he was Hari as well as lessee of the land in dispute. He was cultivating the said land. Hence he has preferential right to purchase the land under dispute being the pre-emptor. He further contends that no notice was given to him at the time of sale by the respondent with the result that he was not aware of the sale transaction. He came to know about the transaction only when the Khata was mutated and the respondent came to take possession of the land. Since he was not aware of the transaction, no delay could be attributed to him in filing the application before Mukhtiarkar/Tribunal. The order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner was without jurisdiction as he decided the case when he ceased to have revisional powers under the amended law.
' The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand contends that the petitioner was not Hari of the land but a lessee of the land under dispute. His name did not appear in the Khasra Girdawari.
The name of Adloo was shown as Hari of the land. Since he (Adloo) relinquished his right in favour of the respondent, the question of pre-emption right in his favour did not arise. So far Laiq is concerned, he being a lessee of the land, could not claim pre-emption right. Arguments given by the petitioner for delay in filing application for two years were not accepted by the Mukhtiarkar who had rightly rejected his application being time-barred. So far as impugned order of Additional Deputy Commissioner he stressed that order passed by him was valid because revision was pending in his Court and there is nothing in the amended law to indicate that the Deputy Commissioners who were hearing revisions had ceased to function as revisional authority.
' Heard the parties and perused the impugned order. So far the first point that the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner was valid as the revision was pending with him, I do not agree with the arguments of the Advocate for the respondents. The Deputy Commissioners had ceased to have revisional powers after the new law which came into effect from 18-5-1976 while the impugned order was passed on 30-6-I976. After this amendment all the cases pending with Mukhtiarkars, Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners were transferred to the Deputy Commissioner, Commissioners and Members, Board of Revenue because the Mukhtiarkars, Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners ceased to have original, appellate and revisional powers, respectively, with effect from that date. Since the Additional Deputy Commissioners ceased to have revisional powers on 18-5-1976, he was not competent to decide this case. He should have transferred it to the Board of Revenue as was done in other cases.
Therefore the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner was without jurisdiction. So far merits of the case are concerned the name of Adloo is shown as Hari for both the S. Nos. 64 and 65 during the year 73-74. During the year 1974-75 the name of Laiq is shown against S. N. 65 and name of Adloo against S. No,
64. In Dakhalkharaj register mutation is entered on 20-12-1973 and the Mukhtiarkar attested the entry on 26-12-1973 for both the sale transactions The register also shows entry No 38 in the name of Laiq as lessee of the disputed land. There is also entry as pointed out by the Additional Deputy Commissioner at Sr. No, 12 of Dakhalkharaj register and Sr. Nos. 147, 153 and 209 of village Form VII show that Laiq had share in the land inherited by him and that purchased from claimant Ms/. Qudisia Begum. This shows that Laiq has other land on his Khata. Since he was lessee of the land under dispute, he took advantage of the position and got his name entered as Hari against S. No, 64 during the year 1974-75, to create his right of pre-emption. The crucial year on which the pre-emption right is decided is 1973-74 during which Adloo is shown as Hari of both the S. Nos. The year 1974-75 has no relevancy so far as the pre-emption right is concerned. In fact Adloo was Hari but he relinquished his right in favour of the respondents who themselves appear poor persons. It is probably because of this then Adloo the real Hari surrendered his right. In view of these facts I confirm the order of Additional Deputy Commissioner who has rightly held that Muhammad Laiq was not entitled to the pre-emption right. .