1. ' WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---The subject-matter of the dispute in this leave petition is agricultural land admeasuring 10-13 acres in District Sanghar. The respondent No,1, as Hari, obtained an order recognizing his right of pre-emption amounting to a decree from the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar, acting as Tribunal under para. 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. Against such order the petitioners-vendees approached the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, who set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner on 15-7-1987, the said order being confirmed by the Member, Board of Revenue on 16-12-1987. Respondent No,1 purported Hari thereupon approached the High Court of Sindh in Constitutional Petition No,D-17 of 1988 which was allowed on the ground that the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad and the Member, Board of Revenue had misconstrued the effect of N.-W.F.P. Government v. Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360), as further clarified in Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali PLD 1988 SC 287). The High Court found that because the alleged Hari had successfully established his right to pre-empt before the crucial date viz. 31-7-1986 on 7-10-1985 the pendency of further proceedings in appeal etc., on the crucial date was insignificant. Against the order of the High Court, dated 7-4-1999, quashing the orders dated 15-7-1987 and 16-12-1987 of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, and the Member, Board of Revenue this leave petition has been filed.
2. ' Mr. Azhar Farooqi, for the petitioner, does not dispute the correctness of the High Court finding as regards the interpretation of the aforementioned two decisions from this jurisdiction. All he has urged is that the High Court was in error merely in quashing the said two orders in consequence thereof should have remanded the case back to one or the other of those authorities who bad passed the orders which did not find favour with the High Court. Going through such orders which have been quashed by the High Court we have found that in neither of these the right of the alleged Hari on merits has been considered and the decisions have been rendered purely on the legal plane of the effect of the referred two decisions of this Court. We have also found that in the appeal taken to the Additional Commissioner by the petitioners-vendees specific explanations were given for their non-appearance before the Deputy Commissioner on 7-10-1985 and an express challenge was raised to the factum of the respondent No,1 being a Hari of the lands in question. Leave, accordingly, is granted to consider whether the High Court, in the circumstances, was obliged to remand the case upon quashment of the two orders above-referred. Hearing within the year.