Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 1809‑D of 1980, decided on 5th April, 1983.

‑‑ S. 30"‑Pre‑emption ‑Limitation‑Suit filed one year after attesta tion of mutation, held, time‑barred.‑[Limitation).

‑‑‑ S. 8 (2) read with Notification No. 196‑R, dated 28th February, 1944‑Pre‑emption, exemption of ‑‑No right of pre‑emption existing at time when land was sold ‑Pre‑emptor's suit and appeal, held, rightly dismissed.

Muhammad Aslam and Khan Gal Khan Baloch for Petitioners.

Ashiq Husain Malik for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 5th April, 1983.

This petition seeks revision of the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Sargodha, dated the 26th January, 1977 recording dismissal of the petitioner's suit for possession by pre‑emption of 2114 Kanals of land in dispute, situate in the area of Chak No. 11/S.B., Tahsil Bhalwal. district Sargodha, and of the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, dated the 30th April, 1980, endorsing in appeal the decision of the learned trial Court. Ijaz Hussain Shah and his sister, Mst. Kaniz Batool, sold the land in question to the respondents and Mutation No. 474 (copies Exhs. P. 4, P. 6 and D. 3) entered on the 2nd June, 1972 was attested according to the peti tioner on the 18th July, 1972 but according to the respondents on the 18th June, 1972 in respect of the sale. Claiming himself to be in possession of right of pre‑emption superior to that of the respondents on the basis of his being brother of the vendors, Ghulam Haider Shah, the petitioner, instituted suit on the 10th July, 1973 to pre‑empt the sale. He averred that the sale had taken place for Rs. 1,00,000 but an ostensible price of Rs. 1,75,000 had been fictitiously got described in the mutation.

2. The respondents contested the suit among others on the grounds, which were agitated in arguments before this Court and which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition, that it was time‑barred and that the land at the time of sale was not amenable to the provisions of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act.

3. The learned trial as well as the appellate Courts below came to the conclusion that the mutation of sale of the land in dispute had been sanction ed on the 18th June, 1972, and, therefore, the suit filed on the 10th July, 1973 was barred by time. Also they found that under Government notifi cation No. 196‑R, dated the 28th February, 1944 issued under section 8 (2) of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913, no right of pre‑emption existed in respect of the land in suit when it was sold. Therefore, they non‑suited the petitioner.

4. No flaw with the process of appreciation of evidence leading to the concurrent finding of fact that the mutation of sale of the land was attested on the 18th June 1972 has been pointed out. Therefore, the suit cannot but be held to have been brought out of time The provisions of the Government Tenants (Punjab) Act, 1893 were made applicable to the land in dispute situate in the then Shahpur district and within the irrigation boun daries of Jhelum Canal by virtue of the Provincial Government Notification No. 128, dated the 28th July, 1902. As provided by Government Tenants Act, the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 applies to the disputed land to which the provisions of the Government Tenants (Punjab) Act, 1893 had been made applicable. Therefore, sale of the land in suit was not pre‑emptible as no right of pre‑emption existed when it took place as declared by Provincial Government Notification No‑ 196‑R, dated the 28th February, 1944 referred to above. The petitioner's suit and appeal were in these circumstances rightly dismissed. This petition is without any force and is dismissed with costs.

M. A. K. Petition 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.