Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
P L D 1982 Lahore 179
Before Muhammad Ilyas, J
AMANAT KHAN-Petitioner
versus
GHULAM SARWAR-Respondent
Civil Revision No. 445-D of 1981, decided on 30th November, 1981.
Land Reforms Regulatton,1972 [M. L. R. 115]‑
Para. 25 (3)‑Right of pre‑emption‑Held: Extends also to land not actually cultivated by tenant including ghair mumkin part and land in occupation of party as tenant.‑[Pre‑emption].
Malik Talib Hussain Awan for Petitioner.
Date of hearing : 30th November 1981.
The petitioner, Amanat Khan, filed a suit against the respondent, Ghulam Sarwar, for possession of certain land through pre‑emption. It was alleged by the petitioner that he was son of Fazal Khan who had sold the disputed land to the respondent. The suit was resisted by the respondent inter alia on the ground that he was in occupation of the land in question as a tenant. The Civil Judge, who heard the suit, found that the respondent was in posses sion of some of the land as a tenant. The suit was, therefore, dismissed in regard to that land but was decreed in respect of rest of the land. The petitioner filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge but without success. He has, therefore, come up in revision to this Court.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that some of the land left with the respondent was ghair mumkin and, therefore, he could not be treated as tenant of that land. This point was not expressly raised before the trial Court and thus the respondent had no opportunity to present his view point in the matter. It was not denied by the learned counsel that in the revenue record the respondent was shown as tenant of that piece of land also which was ghair mumkin. In sub‑paragraph (3) of,. paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, by which first right of pre‑emption was conferred on the tenant, it has not been specifically provided that the said right would extend to that land only which is actually cultivated by the tenant.' The words used in the said paragraph are "the land comprised in his tenancy". It is evident from the revenue record that the land for which thel petitioner's suit was not decreed, including ghair mumkin part of it, was in the occupation of the respondent as a tenant. Therefore, the said land; including the ghair mumkin part of it, would be deemed to be comprised in his tenancy for the purpose of sub‑paragraph (3) ibid. In this view of the matter, he had first right of pre‑emption qua the said land and the petitioner's suit in relation thereto was rightly dismissed.
3. There is no merit in this petition. It. is dismissed in limine.
s. Q. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer