Pakistan Case Law
1982 PLD Lahore 179

AMANAT KHAN vs GHULAM SARWAR

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1982 PLD Lahore 179
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Civil Revision No. 445-D of 1981
Date1981-11-29
Judge(s)Muhammad Ilyas
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This civil revision petition arises from a suit for possession of land through pre-emption filed by the petitioner, Amanat Khan, against the respondent, Ghulam Sarwar. The core legal question was whether land classified as 'ghair mumkin' (uncultivable) could be considered part of a 'tenancy' for the purposes of exercising the right of pre-emption under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The trial court and the appellate court had previously dismissed the suit regarding the land occupied by the respondent, finding him to be a tenant. The High Court upheld these decisions, holding that the statutory right of pre-emption conferred on a tenant under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, extends to all land comprised in the tenancy, not merely land under actual cultivation. The Court reasoned that since the revenue record designated the respondent as the tenant of the disputed land, including the 'ghair mumkin' portion, it fell within the scope of his tenancy. Consequently, the respondent possessed the superior right of pre-emption, and the petition was dismissed in limine.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the right of pre-emption conferred on a tenant under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 extend to land that is not under actual cultivation?
  • Can 'ghair mumkin' land be considered part of a tenancy for the purpose of exercising pre-emption rights?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Paragraph 25(3), Land Reforms Regulation 1972
pre-emptiontenancy rightsghair mumkin landLand Reforms Regulationcivil revisionrevenue record

The petitioner, Amanat Khan, filed a suit against the respondent, Ghulam Sarwar, for possession of certain land through pre-emption. It was alleged by the petitioner that he was son of Fazal Khan who had sold the disputed land to the respondent. The suit was resisted by the respondent inter alia on the ground that he was in occupation of the land in question as a tenant. The Civil Judge, who heard the suit, found that the respondent was in posses--sion of some of the land as a tenant.

The suit was, therefore, dismissed in regard to that land but was decreed in respect of rest of the land. The petitioner filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge but without success. He has, therefore, come up in revision to this Court.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that some of the land left with the respondent was ghair mumkin and, therefore, he could not be treated as tenant of that land. This point was not expressly raised before the trial Court and thus the respondent had no opportunity to present his view point in the matter. It was not denied by the learned counsel that in the revenue record the respondent was shown as tenant of that piece of land also which was ghair mumkin. In sub-paragraph (3) of,. Paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, by which first right of pre-emption was conferred on the tenant, it has not been specifically provided that the said right would extend to that land only which is actually cultivated by the tenant.' The words used in the said paragraph are "the land comprised in his tenancy". It is evident from the revenue record that the land for which thel petitioner's suit was not decreed, including ghair mumkin part of it, was in the occupation of the respondent as a tenant. Therefore, the said land; including the ghair mumkin part of it, would be deemed to be comprised in his tenancy for the purpose of sub-paragraph (3) ibid. In this view of the matter, he had first right of pre-emption qua the said land and the petitioner's suit in relation thereto was rightly dismissed.

3. There is no merit in this petition. It. Is dismissed in limine.

Cited by 13 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.