Find a Lawyer

Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 1979, decided on 4th October, 1983.

‑‑ S. 8(2) read with Notification of Board of Revenue, dated 20th January, 1977‑Exemption from pre‑emption‑Condition to pre‑exit before exemption granted by Board can be availed of‑Appellant neither affected by construction of Mangla Dam nor certified by Commissioner to be "displaced" thereby‑Held, not entitled to enjoy immunity granted by Notification nor sale in their favour exempt from exercise of right of pre‑emption.

Working Muslim Mission v. Crown P L D 1956 F C 209 ; Lahore Im provement Trust v. Khuda Bakhsh‑Mehraj Din P L D 1956 Lah. 252 and Hamid Bakshu v. Irahim Meah P L D 1956 Dacca 132 distinguished.

Amin Abdullah v. Commissioner, Sargodha Division 1981 C L C 680 ref.

S. Iqbal Haider Zaidi for Appellant.

Malik Muhammad Rasool for Respondent.

Dates of hearing : 3rd and 4th October, 1983.

.‑This regular first appeal is by the vendees in a pre‑emption suit which was decreed on 19th March, 1979 by a Civil Judge at Gujranwala. The only question for consideration is if the sale in favour of the vendees was exempt from the exercise of right of pre‑emp tion by virtue of a notification issued by the Board of Revenue under section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913.

2. The land in dispute measures 150 Kanals and 4 Marlas and is situate in village Kharak of Tehsil Gujraliwala. It was owned by one Muhammad Mujahid Khan. By a registered deed, dated 4th May, 1974 he sold this entire land to Rehmat Khan, Fazal Hussain, Faiz Alam and Fateh Alam, sons of Haji Musahib Din, in half share, and Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Arif and Tariq Mahmood, in the other half share, for a total consideration of Rs. 1,20,000. On 3rd May, 1975 Muhammad Rafiq respondent brought the present suit for pre‑emption basing his superior right on the sole ground that he was an owner in the estate.

3. All the vendees are residents of village Akalgarh in Tehsil Mirpur of Azad Kashmir. Some land in this village was acquired by the Govern ment for the construction of reservoirs for the Mangla Dam. Of the land so acquired four Marlas belonged to Muhammad Iqbal, appellant Nos. 5, and 2 Kanals arid 7 Marlas was owned by the State. The State land was in the possession of a large number of persons including Fateh Muhammad, father of Muhammad Arif and Tariq Mahmood, appellants Nos. 6 and 7. Rehmat Khan, Fazal Hussain, Faiz Alam, Fateh Alam, sons of Musahib Din, appellants Nos, 1 to 4, were not at all affected by the acquisition.

4. By a series of notifications issued under section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act the Board of Revenue granted exemption to sales made in favour of persons displaced on account of the construction of Mangla Dam from the exercise of the right of pre‑emption. The notification upon which the appellants rely is Exh. D. 4. It was issued by the Board of Revenue on 20th January, 1977. It reads as follows :‑

In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) of section 8 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913 (Punjab Act I of 1913), the Board of Revenue, Punjab in continuation of its notification No. 2131‑76/1003‑IR‑III, dated 7th June, 1977, is pleased to declare that in the whole of the Punjab Province no right of pre‑emption shall exist for a period of 2 years with respect to the sale of agri cultural land not exceeding 12 acres of canal irrigated area or 50 acres of unirrigated area and other immovable property not ex ceeding the market value of Rs. 10,000 (ten thousand only), in favour of a person displaced on account of the construction of Mangla Dam and certified to be so displaced by the Commissioner, Mangla Dam Affairs, Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir."

It is common ground between the parties that the earlier notifications were expressed in similar terms. The appellants had sought to defeat the suit of the respondent on the basis of these notifications. A perusal of the notification will indicate that two conditions must pre‑exist before the exemption granted by the Board can be availed of. These conditions are :

(i) The person seeking exemption must be a person who has been displaced on account of the construction of the Mangla Dam.

(ii) The Commissioner, Mangla Dam Affairs of the Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, should certify that the said person has been so displaced.

As already pointed out the sons of Musahib Din, that is, appellants Nos. 1 to 4, were not affected in any manner by the construction of Mangla Dam. They also did not care to obtain a certificate to that effect from the Commissioner. Thus, they are clearly not entitled to any exemption.

5. On the other hand Muhammad Iqbal, appellant No. 4, as well as Muhammad‑Arif and Tariq Mahmood, sons of Fateh Muhammad, appellants Nos. 6 and 7, produced two certificates from the Commissioner. These certificates are Exhs. D‑2 and D‑3 on the record. The certificate produced by Muhammad Arif and Tariq Mahmood is in the name of their father, Fateh Muhammad. These certificates are on cyclostyled forms. The opening sentence of the form runs as follows :

It is to certify that Mr .caste ..resident of village ..Tehsil District Mirpur (Azad Kashmir) is affected /displaced by the construction of Mangla Dam Project."

In both certificates (Exhs. D‑2 and D‑3) the word displaced' has been crossed. It will thus appear that the Commissioner has declared Muhammad Iqbal, and father of Muhammad Arif and Tariq Mahmood as merely affected persons and has declined to give them the status of dis placed persons. As already noticed, appellants Nos. 5 to 7 can take advantage of the notification of exemption only if they are certified by the Commissioner to be persons who have been displaced by the construction of Mangla Dam. Thus, strictly speaking, they have failed to produce such certificate.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the certi ficates granted by the Commissioner should be liberally construed as by issuing these certificates the Commissioner obviously intended to declare the appellants as displaced persons for the purpose of enabling them to seek the benefit of the notification of exemption. In support of his con tention he referred to Working Muslim Mission v. Crown (P L D 1956 F C 209) Lahore. Im provement Trust v. Khuda Bakhsh‑Mehraj Din (P L D 1956 Lah. 252) and Hamid Bakshu v. Irahim Meah (P L D 1956 Dacca 132). We do not think that these authorities have any bearing on the facts before us. As the forms of the certificate are worded, it was open to the Commissioner to declare Muhammad Iqbal and Fateh Muhammad either as affected or displaced persons. He consciously struck off the word displaced' from the form. It is to be noted that the word 'affected' is of a much larger import than the word displaced' inso far as acquisition proceedings are concerned for every person whose land has been acquired is an affected person but he need not necessarily be displaced as a result thereof. As mentioned by me in Amin Abdullah v. Commissioner, Sargodha Division (1981 C L C 680) the word 'displaced' means to be put out of, or dislodged from the usual or proper place. The form devised by the Commissioner for the certificate clearly makes that distinction. It is to be noticed that both Muhammad Iqbal and Fateh Muhammad con tinued to reside in Akalgrah even after the construction of Mangla Dam. Besides, the extent and nature of land taken away from them for the construction of reservoirs was so small or insignificant that the Commissioner found it difficult to describe them as displaced persons. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention that the certificates in question be so largely construed that the appellants may be equated with the displaced persons and given the advantage of the notification of exemption.

7. It is also to be noticed that none from appellants Nos. 5 to 7 appeared in the witness‑box to contend that be had been displaced by the construction of Mangla Dam. In view of the above position we are entirely in agreement with the learned trial Judge that they are not entitl ed to enjoy the immunity granted by the notification. Thus the sale made in their favour was not exempt from the exercise of the right of pre‑emption.

8. For the reasons stated above we find no merit in this appeal which is hereby, dismissed with costs.

S. Q. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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