Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Munsif, Deeg-Bayana, under sec. 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) THE plaintiff Ram Singh instituted a suit for possession by pre-emption against the vendor Raghunath and the vendee Parma on the allegation that Raghunath Singh had sold his agricultural land measuring 6 Bighas and 2 Biswas, Khewat No. 51/271, Khasra No. 242 and 363 on 28th November, 1949, on an ostensible consideration of Rs. 300/ -. It was claimed under paragraph 5 of the amended plaint that he was a co-sharer and Hamjaddi of the vendor and had a preferential right of purchase by a right of pre-emption. Three other persons, who were said to possess the same right of pre-emption, were made defendants Nos. 3 to 5. THE suit was contested by the vendor, who pleaded that the plaintiff had failed to disclose in what manner his right of pre-emption arose. THE learned Munsif framed several issues, on of which. issue No. 1, was whether the plaintiff's suit for pre-emption was maintainable, and if so, on what grounds? During the course of arguments the plaintiff relied on para 3 of Revenue Circular No. 24 of 1909 issued by the former Bharatpur State. That paragraph is as under - "permanent alienation will be allowed in the first instance to co-sharers who are Hamjaddis of the transferer and after them to agriculturist members of the same com-munity of the same village then to the agricultural members of the same village and lastly for very special reasons i. e. if the Hamjaddis or other members of the same village community are unable or unwilling to take the land, to the members of the agriculturist community of other villages of the State. " THE learned Munsif was of opinion that this paragraph gave rise to a right of Pre-emption according to the priority mentioned in that paragraph; but the rights created by the said Circular could not now be enforced by virtue of Art. 19 (f) of the Constitution. He accordingly made a reference to this court under sec. 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, after expressing his opinion as above. It may be pointed out that the aforesaid Revenue Circular purports to lay down "rules for alienation of land" as the heading signifies; and paragraph 13 says that - "any alienation whether permanent or temporary made contrary to the provisions to the above rules will be null and void and the transferee in all such cases will be liable to ejectment by the order of the Deputy Collector. " Paragraph 3 thus does not create any right of pre-emption, but is a rule for the guidance of the revenue officers in the matter of sanctions for alienation, and the consequence of not complying with the rule only makes the sale null and void as provided in paragraph 13. The reference made by the learned Munsif is therefore, not properly conceived, and the Circular is not relevant to the matters under enquiry. It is not necessary to decide whether it contravenes Art. 19 of the Constitution. With the above expression of opinion, the case is sent back to the learned Munsif for further trial according to law. No order as to costs. .;