FAZAL DIN vs SADIQ KHAN AND Other

ORDER

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J -This petition is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 1-3-1982, whereby the second appeal (R. S. A. No. 249/73, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed.

2: The relevant facts are that 81 kanals 1 marla of agricultural land, belonging to one Abdul Aziz (Respondent No. 2 herein), was comprised of ' two categories of land. The first, measuring 55 kanals, 1 marla of land stood allotted to him under the Displaced Persons (Land settlement) Act, 1958, while the second category consisted of the remaining 20 kanals, which initially were also allotted to him but was subsequently surrendered and re--purchased under the provisions of Martial Law Regulation Nos. 89 and 91 of 1961. Both these categories of land were purchased by the petitioner but the said sales were pre-empted by Sadiq Khan, Respondent No. 1. The question arose whether the sales were pre-emptiable.

3. The trial Court was of the opinion that only 26 kanals of land was pre-emptiable on the ground that the land of this category did not form part of the compensation pool and, therefore, its sale was pre-emptiable. According to it, the sale of the remaining part of the land which was transferred under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act and had not yet gone out of the compensation pool, was not subject to pre--emption. He, therefore, decreed the suit to the extent of 26 kanals on the payment of the proportionate price. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge, however, held that the entire land was pre-emptiable and accordingly decreed the pre- emptor's suit in respect of the total land measuring 81 kanals 1 marlas on payment of Rs. 19,000. The petitioner, therefore, filed a second appeal before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which, however, was dismissed. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

4. We have heard Khawaja Muhammad Tufail, in support of the petition and are inclined to agree with the view taken by the learned Judge in the High Court that the pronouncement of this Court in Haji Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Siddiq (PLD 1973 SC 347) covered the situation obtaining in this case and we are, therefore, of the opinion that the said judgment was rightly applied for dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.

5. There is, therefore, no force in this petition, which accordingly fails and is dismissed hereby.