Find a Lawyer

(a) Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M. L. R. 1151‑‑

‑‑ S. 25 (3)(d)‑First right of pre‑emption‑Could be claimed by hart (tenant) if such tenant in cultivating possession of land as from Kharif, 1972‑Respondent ceasing to be hart of land after year 1970‑71, held, not entitled to claim benefit of S. 25(3)(d).‑[Pre‑emp tion].

(b) Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M. L. R. 1151‑

5. 5(3)(d)‑One of petitioners not party to proceedings and not afforded any opportunity of hearing‑Impugned order, held, cannot be maintained due to such defect.

(r) Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M. L. R. 1151‑

‑‑ S. 25 (3) (d)‑Impugned order passed against person having died 30 years earlier‑Order, held, defective and not sustainable.

Mohammad Alt Shaikh for Petitioners.

Usman Ghant Rashid, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Respondent No. 3 in person.

Date of hearing : 4th April 1978.

S. A. NUSRAT, J.‑.Dispute in this petition relates to S. Nos. 47 and 48 situated in Deh Mado Rayati, Taluka Khairpur Nathan Shah, District Dadu. The petitioners entered into an agreement for the purchase of the Survey numbers in question with one Ali Imam in 1971 and were delivered possession of the land. Later they acquired the land by a registered sale deed dated 24‑4‑1974. Respondent No. 3 filed an application under section 25 (3) (d) of the M. L. R. 115 of 1972 before the Deputy Commissioner on 2‑2‑1974 against one Ali Hayder claiming pre‑emption rights on the land, on the ground that he along with one Khair Mohammad were in cultivating pos session of the land and were harris. The said application came to be heard by the Muktiarkar and Tenancy Tribunal, K. N. Shah, and was dismissed on 11‑6‑1974. The respondent No. 3 filed appeal against the said order, in which he joined the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 and two other persons, namely Ghulam Sarwar and Hamzo as parties. Hamzo had already died about 30 years back and Ghulam Sarwar is stated to be a stranger and not known to the petitioners. The said appeal was also dismissed by the Assistant Com missioner on 15‑4‑1975. The respondent thereupon filed a revision application before the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu which was allowed on 4‑6‑1975. It is this last order, passed by the respondent No. 2, which has been challenged in this petition. Since the respondent No. 3 was not assisted by any counsel and the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were not defending the petition, as noted in the order dated 13‑8‑1975, we called upon the learned Additional Advocate- General to assist us in the matter.

Mr. Mohammad Ali Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that since the respondent No. 3 had left the land in dispute in 1970‑71, the provisions of M. L. R. 115 were not attracted and the application was not maintainable. He further contended that the respondent No. 2 did not issue any notice to the respondent No. 1, although he had 1/8th share in the land, and as such the order was liable to be set aside on this short ground, also. Lastly it was contended that according to the admitted position on the record the respondent No. 3 was not a hari of the land.

The Assistant Commissioner, who had examined the record in the presence of the Tapeder, noted in his order, that according to the Registe 'Khasra Gardawar the respondent No. 3 had remained hurl on the disputed land during the year 1970‑71 and thereafter one Saleh Chandio was found to be hari during the years 1971‑72 to 1972‑73. According to para, 25(3) (d) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M. L. R. 115) a tenant/hart could chaim the first right of pre‑emption if be bad been in cultivating possession of the land as from Kharif 1972. Since the respondent No. 3 had ceased to be a hari after the year 1970‑71, as held by the Assistant Commis sioner, he could not claim the benefit of the said provision and his application was, itself, incompetent. The impugned order also suffers from anotherpatent defect that one of the petitioners, Ghulam Mohammad son of Hamzo, was not a party to the proceedings and was not afforded any opportunity, of hearing. Besides the order was passed against Hamzo, who had died 3 years earlier. The impugned order thus suffers from more than one defect and cannot be sustained.

In the circumstances we would allow the petition and quash the impugned order of the respondent No. 2, dated 4‑6‑1975. However, there will be no order as to costs. S. A. H.

Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.