1. ' This is a revision petition against the order, dated 20th May, 1976, passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Appellate Authority regarding pre-emption right in S. Nos. 51, 55, 54, 56, 57, 58,
61. 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 72, 73, 77, 80, 111, 151, 160 and 210 of Deh Lunelo, Taluka Tando Muhammad Khan, District Hyderabad.
2. The facts of the case are that Messrs Nazir Hussain and others have executed sale with Haji Sawan and others under registered deed for disputes S. No, at the rate of Rs, 2,000 per acre. The respondents filed an application before the Mukhtiarkar and Tenancy Tribunal for exercise of right of pre-emption to purchase the land. The Tribunal maintained the Ha rap and pre-emption rights of Hans in the following S. Nos. {{TABLE}} S. Nos. Name of Had 58, 54, 57 Lakhano son of Amb Chandio.
2. 61, 62 Haji Dato son of Ali Chandio.
3. 63 Ali son of Umar Chandio.
4. 64, 65 Karim Bux son of Lalu Chandio.
5. 66 Achu son of Lala Chandio.
6. 77, 51, 210 Adam son of Nand Chandio.
7. 72, 73 Muhammad son of Nanclo Chandio.
8. 1 2 .......=110mmosia.11 morswwwM anwo....
9. 151, 160, 151 Nando son of Muhammad Chandio.
10. 53 Qassim son of Jumo Chandio.
11. 55, 56 Hamal son of Gul Chandio.
12. 111 Muhammad son of Gul Chandio.
13. 80 Haji Dato son of Ali. {{TABLE}} ' Haji Sawan Khan and others preferred an appeal against that order which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner/Appellate Authority vide the impugned order. The Assistant Commissioner, however, further reduced the price of the land from Rs, 2,000 per acre to Rs, 1,000 per acre and directed the respondent to pay up the price within one month. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners have submitted the present revision petition.
2. Heard the parties and perused the record. The Harap right of the respondents has not been disputed by the petitioners. According to the orders of the Mukhtiarkar and Tenancy Tribunal, the respondents had to pay Rs, 2,000 per acre for the land under dispute. The respondents had not made any representation/appeal against that order. The sale price could be examined, assessed and adjudicated upon by the Tenancy Tribunal under rule 7 of the Sind Land Commission (Pre- emption) Rules, 1974, which is inter alia requires that the tenant/applicant shall move the Tribunal for the purpose. In the present case, there was no representation whatsoever from the tenants/applicants for reduction of the price suo motu. The rules do not provide exercise of suol4 motu jurisdiction by the Appellate Authority and as such the order is not proper and cannot be maintained. The revision petition is accordingly upheld and the order of the Assistant Commissioner/Appellate Authority is set aside so far as it relates to reduction of price of the land.
14. The respondents may, however, approach the competent authority for adjudication of the price if they are aggrieved by the same and their request may be dealt with according to law.