JUDGMENT - M.N. CHANDURKAR, J.:---The petitioner was the owner of Survey No. 86 (Gat No. 115) measuring 19 acres 11 gunthas situated at Pandhrol, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad. Admittedly the landlord exercising his right under section 19(2) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "Hyderabad Tenancy Act") served a notice terminating his tenancy on the ground that the tenant-respondent No. 1, committed defaults in payment of rent and an order for possession was made by the Tahsildar on 7th April 1960. The tenants appeal filed against this order came to be dismissed as also a revision application filed by him before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal came to be dismissed. The landlord had, in the meantime, taken possession of the field on 13th April, 1960. He then entered into an agreement of sale with two persons Dhondiram and Assaram and after obtaining permission of the Deputy Collector under section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act a registered sale deed came to be executed on 4th August 1972. After this transaction has been gone through, respondent No. 1 who was the erstwhile tenant filed an application purporting to be one under section 38 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act on 20-11-1972 seeking to purchase the same filed in respect of which his lease was terminated and which was transferred by the petitioner. An objection was raised to the maintainability of this application and the Additional Tahsildar held that the application was maintainable and he posted the case for evidence on other issues on 17th October, 1973. The landlords filed a revision application before the Deputy Collector, Land Records, who found that the landholder was required to sell the land to respondent No. 1 in view of the explanation enacted by the legislature after sub-section (8) in sections 48 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act. He, therefore, rejected the revision application. This petition is now filed by the landlord challenging the orders of the Additional Tahsildar and the Deputy Collector. It is obvious that both the Revenue authorities have misapprehended the scope of the provisions of sections 38 and section 48 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act. Section 38 deals with the statutory right of ownership of the protected tenants. Section 48 deals with sale of leased land to a tenant. It is obvious that both the Revenue authorities have misapprehended the scope of the provisions of sections 38 and section 48 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act. Section 38 deals with the statutory right of ownership of the protected tenants. Section 48 deals with sale of leased land to a tenant. Under section 48 if a landholder intends to sell any land leased to a tenant he has to apply to the Tribunal for determining the reasonable price thereof and the Tribunal has taken to determine the reasonable price of the land in accordance with the provisions of section 50 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act (emphasis supplied). After this price is determined, then the landholder has to make an offer to sell such land to "the tenant in actual possession thereof" even if the land is a fragment and then to all persons and bodies mentioned in the priority list. The priority list is given in the explanation and at serial No. (i) the words are "an agricultural labourer". According to Mr. Vaishnav, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, it was under this explanation that respondent No. 1 was claiming a right. This argument, however, overlooks the fact that the main provisions in section 48(1) and (2) which deal which determining the purchase price at the instance of the land holder and the obligation of the landholder to make an offer to sell that land at the price so determined is only in respect of "land leased to a tenant". The first person to whom such agricultural land is required to be offered under section 48(2) is "the tenant in actual possession thereof". The words "land leased to a tenant" and "tenant in actual possession thereof" leave no scope for any argument that a person whose tenancy has been lawfully terminated is entitled to purchase the land under scheme of priority in section 48. Section 48 is restricted to a case where the landlord wants to sell land and the first right is that of the subsisting tenant in case of his reluctance alone the other persons or bodies mentioned in the priority list became relevant. In the instant case, respondent No. 1 cannot be said to be a tenant of the land, nor can the land which has been transferred by the petitioner be said to be land "leased to a tenant". In the instant case, respondent No. 1 cannot be said to be a tenant of the land, nor can the land which has been transferred by the petitioner be said to be land "leased to a tenant". The application made by respondent No. 1 was, therefore, entirely misconceived and was liable to be rejected. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, however, argued that the entire application could have been decided on merits as directed by the Tahsildar. However, the fact remains that both the Tahsildar and the Deputy Collector have held that respondent No. 1 was entitled to purchase and what remained was only the determination of the purchase price. If, as I have found, respondent No. 1 has no right to purchase the land, futile litigation could be avoided by disposing of the entire matter at this stage. In the view which I have taken, the orders of the Deputy Collector and the Tahsildar are quashed and the application filed by respondent No. 1 himself stand dismissed. Rule made absolute. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. -----