Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 42 of 1984, decided on 6th April, 1986.

‑‑ Ss. 4 & 4‑A‑htorth‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950), Ss. 4 & 12‑fire‑emption‑Vendee by purchase of occupancy rights of land in dispute cannot become a co‑sharer in Milkiat‑Occupancy tenant of land could become full owner only on payment of compensation and in case he fails to pay compensa tion determined in accordance with law, rights of occupancy are extinguished and instead landlord becomes entitled to acquire possession on payment of compensation to tenant‑Unless condi tions laid down under Ss. 4 & 4‑A of North‑West Frontier Province Tenancy Act 1950 are complied with by occupancy tenant he cannot be said to have acquired proprietary interest in land.

Sayeeduddin Ahmed v. Hujf .Iunus Mia P L D 1960 Dacca 416 and Sikandar v. .Sultan Muhammad P I D 1,974 SC 11 rel.

‑‑‑ S. 12 ‑‑Pre‑emption, superior right of‑Vendee‑Occupancy rights purchased by vendee out of Khasra number in dispute converted into ownership during pendency of suit Vendee, held, could not be benefited by such ownership ‑Any improvement in status of vendee after institution of a suit for pre‑emption would not affect right of pre‑emptor and any such improvement otherwise than by way of inheritance would be of no avail to vendee to cause any damage to superior right of pre‑emptor.

Behram Khan v. Sher Akbar P L D 1960 (W.P.) Pesh. 1 ; Sher Afzal Khan v. Ghulam M'ahboob P L D 1968 Pesh. 81 and Abdul Majid Khan v. Shahzada Asif Jah P L D 1970 Pesh. 37 ref.

Al‑Haj Sardar Bahadur Khan for Petitioner.

S. Abdus Salaam Sarwar for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 15th March, 1986.

Haji Muhammad Yaqoob (petitioner) purchased 5/29 share out of Khasra Nos. 545,/1 and 545/2 measuring 19 canals y Marlas on the basis Of sale Mutation No. 609 sanctioned on 17‑4‑1982. The sale was pre‑empted by Fazalur Rehman and Zarif Khan (respondents) claiming superior right of, 'pre‑emption. on the grounds of co‑ownership, contiguity and participation in immunities and appendages. The suit was resisted by the vendee who vehemently denied the superior right of pre‑emption of the plaintiffs. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground That the plaintiffs; had failed to establish their claim. In the appeal tiled by the plaintiff's The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff being co‑sharers in the Maikiat' land, subject‑matter of the suit had a superior right of pre‑emption and, therefore, entitled to the decree prayed for. The appeal was accepted on 25‑1‑1984 and the case remanded to the trial Court for the determination of the remaining issues. The vendee feeling aggrieved has come in revision.

2. In support of the revi6on it is contended that the petitioner while purchasing the land in suit out of the 1/3rd share of the Malkiat' lard simultaneously purchased the occupancy rights out of the remaining 2,i3rd share of the Khasra numbers in dispute by Mutation No. 610 attested on 17‑4‑1982 and therefore, he also became a co‑sharer in the suit land. In. the alternative it is contended that during the pendency of the suit the occupancy rights purchased by the vendee were converter into ownership by Mutation No. 628 attested on 5‑2‑198,3, and therefore, the vendee having become a co‑sharer in the snit land could effect the pre‑emption suit as the plaintiffs could not maintain their superior right of pre‑emption till the time of the decree. Regarding the first contention reliance is placed on Sayeeduddin Ahmed v. Haji lunus Mia (P L D 1960 Dacca 416) wherein it was held that "under the. Bengal Tenancy Act 1885, the 'joie' right, i. e. Raiyati right of a tenant is permanent, heritable and transferable subject to payment of rent to the landlord. Therefore, where both the pre‑emptor and the vendor were Raiyats under the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, they bad ownership in the land on account of and in respect of which pre‑emption was claimed. and the pre‑emptor was, therefore, entitled to get pre‑emption". It may. however, be mentioned that in Sikandar v. Sultan Muhammad (P L D 1974 SC 11) the afore said decision of the Dacca High Court came up for consideration and it was observed that :

"The learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal has placed strong reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Dacca High Court in case of Sayeeduddin Ahmed v. Haji lunus Mia P L D 1960 Dacca 416 which seems to support tire view that the right of pre‑emption under the Muhammadan Law' is not limited to persons in full proprietary ownership of tire pre‑emptive property and that the word Milk' under the Muhammadan Law covers a wide range of ideas and is not necessarily confined to mere proprietary rights. By this decision the Dacca High Court actually held that where both the pre‑emptor and vendor were Raiyats under the Bengal Tenancy Act, they had such rights in the land which entitled them to claim pre‑emption and, therefore, the sale of joie' right which is a Raiyati right is pre‑emptable."

It was further observed that:‑

The Patna High Court has consistently held that the nigh: of pre‑emp tion does not extend to the transfer of Moqarari tenancy interest because the vendor must have the Milkiat' or ownership in the property on account of which he claims the right of, pre‑emption. All these decisions follow the dictums of Mahmood J., in the case of Sakina Bibi v. Amiran and others T L R 10 All., 472 which has been relied upon by the High Court in its judgment under appeal."

Thus, the contention on behalf of the petitioner that by purchasing the occupancy rights out of the Khasra numbers in dispute the vendee also became a co‑sharer in the Milkiat land cannot be maintained for the reason that under section 4 and 4‑A of the N.‑W. F. P. Tenancy Act 1950 an occupancy tenant of the land could become full owner only on payment of compensation and in case he fails to pay the compensation determined in accordance with law, the rights of occupancy are extinguished and instead the landlord becomes entitled to acquire possession on payment of the compensation to the tenant. Thus, unless the condition laid down under sections 4 and 4‑A of the N.‑W. F. P. Tenancy Act, 1950 are complied with by the occupancy tenant he cannot be said to have acquired proprietary interest in the land. It is not disputed that 1/3rd share of the Khasra numbers in suit is Milkiat" land and the remaining 2/ 3rd is the occupancy tenancy and the sale in dispute was effected out of the Milkiat land wherein the pre‑emptors are admittedly recorded as co sharers.

3. Regarding the other contention reliance is placed on Behrant Khan v. Sher Akbar (P L D 1960 (W. P.) Pesh. 1) and Sher Afzal Khan v. Ghulam Mahboob (P L D 1968 Pesh. 81) wherein it was held that the unequivocal language of section 16 enjoins that the pre-emptor should continue to have the preferential right till the date of decree by the trial Court. The cited cases are distinguishable because in both the cases the property was transferred in favour of a person having an equal or superior right to that of the plaintiff and thus it was held that since under section 16 of the Act the plaintiff could not maintain his subsisting right of pre‑emption at the time of the decree he was not entitled to any relief. In a D.' B. Judgment of this Court Abdul Majid Khan v. Shahzada Asif Jah (P L D 1970 Pesh. 37) the effect or' the addition, of subsection (2) to section 17 of the N. W. F. P. Pre‑emption Act, 1950, by N ‑W. F. P. Pre‑emption (W. P. Amendment) Act, 1967 (VI of 1967) was examined and it was held that the main object and intention of the addition of subsection (2) to section 17 of the N.‑W. F. P. Pre‑emption Act appears to conclude the controversy relating to the question of the vendee improving his status after the institution of the suit. It was observed that:‑‑

"Viewing the addition of subsection (2) to section 17 with this angle of the problem, we are of the opinion that this subsection (2) has been misplaced as to have been added to section 17. This subsection (2) should have formed part of section 16 of the. N.‑W. F. P. Pre‑emption Act and the same is not to be reduced to a nullity by its misplaced addition to section 17 of N.‑W. F. P. Pre‑emption Act."

Thus, it was held that any improvement in the status of the vendee after the institution of a suit for pre‑emption would not affect the right of the pre‑emptor and any such improvement, otherwise than by way of inher itance, would be of no avail to the vendee to cause any damage to the superior right of the pre‑emptor.

4. In this view of the matter the petitioner cannot be benefited by the fact that the occupancy rights purchased by him out of Khasra number in dispute were converted into ownership during the pendency of the suit. For these reasons the revision being without any substance is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

M. Y. H. Revision 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.