This is a revision petition against the order dated 27-6-1987 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad whereby he allowed the appeal of the respondent in respect of S.No.282 and 296 of Deh Fatehpur Taluka Khairpur Nathan Shah.
2. Heard the petitioner in person and the counsel for the respondent. Perused the case papers and the impugned order.
3. I have considered the case. In the present case the petitioner filed pre--emption application before the Mukhtiar kar/Tribunal, Kharrpur Nathan Shah which was rejected. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Dadu which was also rejected and then the revision petition was filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu.
Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner referred the matter to the Board of Revenue, Sind for further action in compliance with the directions issued by the Sind Land Commission vide its circular No.SLC-5537/73/3209, dated 4-7-1976, to the effect that on the promulgation of Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1976, all the pre-emption cases pending before the Mukhtiar kar/Tribunal, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner shall be transferred to the Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner and the Board of Revenue Sind respectively.
4. Accordingly, on receipt of this case from Deputy Commissioner, Dadu the Board of Revenue, Sind after examining the pros and cons of the case, returned the case papers to the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu for taking decision in the matter, strictly on merits, by keeping in view the pre- emption laws then in force.
5. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu vide his order dated 28-4-1 1985 decided the matter by allowing the right of pre-emption to the petitioner in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction and, therefore, his order achieved finality) and no further appeal or revision was legally liable before any judicial forum, as well as even before the Board of Revenue, Sind.
6. As the order dated 28-4-1985 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Dadu, was in pursuance of the direction of the Board of Revenue, Sind in exercise of revisional jurisdiction had attained finality, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is without jurisdiction and is, therefore, nullity.
7.In the result, the present appeal/petition is disposed of accordingly with the above observation.