Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 4507 of 1985, decided on 24th February,1986.

---Para. 25--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.25--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Pre-emption suit--Sale price--Determination of--Constitutional jurisdiction--Pre-emptor accepted whole of consideration mentioned in sale-deed having been paid by vendees to vendor before Sub-Registrar, but asserted that major portion of such consideration was returned back by vendor to vendees immediately after registration of sale-deed--Assertion of pre-emptor supported by sole oral testimony of partial witness, held, was rightly .rejected by revisional Court below in face of strong rebuttal on part of both vendor and vendees--No case for interference of High Court in constitutional jurisdiction was made out in circumstances.

Mehr Ghulam Ali Mubashar for Petitioner.

Mian Sher Alam for Respondent No.1.

Date of hearing: 24th February, 1986.

In this writ petition the legality of the order dated 9-10-1985 of a learned member of the Board of Revenue in a pre-emption suit has been called in question.

2. On 13-7-1978 one Muhammad Sharif sold 9 Kanals and 7 Marlas of agricultural land to respondents Nos. t and 2, The sale was evidenced by a deed which was duly registered. In the sale-deed the price of the land was stated to be Rs.80,000. The whole of this amount was paid by the vendees to Muhammad Sharif in the presence of the Sub Registrar at the time of the registration of the sale-deed.

3. Or, 17-7-1978 the petitioner brought a suit for pre-emption in the (court of Collector, Kharian. He averred in his plaint that he was a tenant in the land in dispute and had therefore, the right to purchase the land ire preference to respondents Nos.1 and 2. He further stated that the actual consideration paid by respondents Nos.1 and 2 was Rt.4,000 but that an inflated amount had been shown in the sale-deed in order to discourage pre-emption.

4. At the trial the main controversy between the parties related to the amount at which the petitioner should be permitted to acquire the land in recognition of his superior right. After considering the evidence led by the parties the Collector came to the conclusion that the witnesses produced by them were not reliable. Accordingly he decided to act upon the statement of average prices as prepared by the Patwari. On that basis he directed the petitioner to pay Rs.13,790 by way of consideration for purchasing the land. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed are appeal before the Additional Commissioner but without any success.

They then went in revision before the Board of Revenue. By the order impugned in this writ petition a learned member of the Board accepted the revision petition and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.30,000 as price of the land. The reasons given by the learned member for interfering with the decision of the Additional Commissioner and the Collector are as follows:--

"On considering the facts of the case and the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, I would hold that the lower Courts had no adequate grounds for rejecting the price certified by the Sub-Registrar as having been paid before him. The issue of price could not have been decided by the trial Court on the basis of five years average or the contested oral evidence that the part of consideration was paid back by the vendor to the petitioners. In view of these observations, I would accept this revision and determine the price of the suit land at Rs.30,000 according to the recital of price in the registered sale-deed. "

The petitioner does not dispute the fact that the whole of the consideration mentioned in the sale-deed was in fact paid by the vendees to the vendor before the Sub-Registrar. On the other hand his case is that immediately after the registration of the sale-deed the vendor returned Rs.24,000 to the vendees. He sought to support his assertion in this regard from the sole testimony of local Lumberdar who was present at the time of the registration of the sale-deed. The Lumberdar did say that the vendor returned Rs.24,000 to the vendees. but in view of the fact that the son-in-law of his wife's sister was engaged in litigation with one of the vendees, he could hardly be considered as an impartial witness. On the other hand the vendor and the vendees appeared in the witness-box and refuted the assertion that any part of the consideration received by the vendor before the Sub-Registrar was returned back to the vendees. This being the state of evidence the learned member was justified in not accepting the story of the petitioner that a major portion of the consideration was given back by the vendor to the vendees. That being the position I do not think that any case for interference in writ jurisdiction has been made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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