Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 375 of 1986, decided on 12th October, 1986.
(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 29‑1‑1986 passed in Civil Revision No. 24‑D of 1986/ B.W.P).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), Ss. 17 1 21‑‑Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115) para. 25 (3) (d)‑‑Pre‑emption‑ Preferential right of tenant‑‑Suit for pre‑emption by co‑sharers‑‑Land sold by some of co‑sharers from un-partitioned Khata‑‑Vendee's claim of preferential right of pre‑emption on account of tenancy, not sustained‑ Portion sold did not comprise land in his tenancy‑‑Vendee could claim superior right of pre‑emption only in respect of land comprised in his tenancy‑‑Decree of Trial Court upheld‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Riaz Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 12th October, 1986.
Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 29th January, 1986, of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner's Civil Revision arising out of a pre‑emption suit, was dismissed.
The petitioner is vendee‑defendant. According to the facts given by the learned counsel he purchased the land in dispute from Arif and Mst. Faiz Ilahi. Faiz Ahmad and Mohammad Mukhtar the collaterals of the vendors (respondents herein) filed suit for pre‑emption. The petitioner's defence was that he being a tenant in respect of the land in dispute had a preferential right under paragraph 25(3)(d) of the Land Reforms Regulation. The suit was decreed. The petitioner's appeal and Revision having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal.
Learned counsel has reiterated the same contention as was raised before the High Court, namely, that the land in dispute was sold from joint Khatas wherein the verdors had share in every parcel of those Khatas and the petitioner being a tenant on 97 Kanals out of 424 Kanals comprised in those Khatas shall be deemed to be tenant of the vendors notwithstanding the fact that his tenancy was under two different co‑sharers namely, Ji 3wadda and Allah Bakhsh. Therefore, he would also be deemed to be the tenant under the vendors. The High Court fell into error and it held otherwise; namely, that the petitioner was not a tenant under the vendors.
It is not denied that the petitioner was recorded as tenant under Jindwadda and Allah Bakhsh and was not recorded as tenant of the vendors namely, Arif and Mat. Faiz Ilahi, His tenancy does not comprise of the whole of the land in the four Khatas i.e. 424 Kanals. He claims to have cultivated only 97 Kanals. It is obvious that those 97 Kanals have not been sold by the vendors, therefore, even if it be assumed that the vendors sold unpartitioned share it was from the land other than the 97 Kanals, which the petitioner held as tenant under Jindwadda and Allah Bakhsh. Under paragraph 25(3)(d) of the Regulation the petitioner could claim superior right of pre‑emption only "in respect of the land comprised in his tenancy" i.e., in respect of the 97 Kanals, which he held under Jindwadda and Allah Bakhah. The same not having been sold by the vendors the suit of the pre‑emptors was rightly decreed in their favour.
No justification has been made out for interference. This petition accordingly, is dismissed.
M.I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer