MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs GHULAM AKBAR
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 18-4-1982, which reversed the District Judge's order and restored the trial court's decree in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerns whether a small plot purchased ostensibly for residential purposes, part of which continues to be used for agriculture and is reflected in the revenue records, can serve as a valid basis for a pre-emption claim, and whether the validity of the underlying sale under Martial Law Regulation 115 can be questioned in pre-emption proceedings. The Supreme Court held that since a portion of the land remains under agricultural use and the revenue record shows seasonal crops, and further noting that only the competent authority under M.L.R. 115 can examine the validity of a sale, the pre-emption suit was rightly decreed. The court laid down that the law of pre-emption is one of substitution, and questions regarding the violation of land reforms regulations cannot be adjudicated collaterally in pre-emption suits by civil courts.
- Can a pre-emption suit be maintained on the basis of ownership of land partly used for residential purposes and partly for agriculture?
- Whether a civil court hearing a pre-emption suit can examine the validity of a sale transaction under Martial Law Regulation 115?
- Is the law of pre-emption considered a law of substitution?
ORDER
M. BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J -Leave is sought against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 18-4-1982 passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 541 of 1976.
2. Land measuring 115 kanals and 11 marlas situate in village Karyala, Tehsil Chakwal was purchased by the petitioner from Fajar Ali and others by a Registered Sale Deed dated 1-10-1970 for a sum of Rs. 60,000. Respondent Ghulam Akbar pre-empted the sale on the basis of being owner in the Estate. It was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that respondent-- plaintiff was not an owner in the Estate and the only immovable property which he owned was 1 kanal and 18 marlas i.e. One- half share of Khasra No. 1365 without any share of Shamilat, which he had purchased from Mst.
Majeedan for residential purpose; and that the vendee-petitioner was related to one of the vendors, namely Fajar Ali. The suit was tried by the Civil Judge, Chakwal who, vide his judgment dated 5-1-1976 decreed the suit for possession through pre-emption. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Jhelum who vide his' judgment dated 27-4-1976 accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of the respondent. Against this order, an appeal was preferred before the High Court and a learned Judge, vide the impugned order dated the 18th April, 1982 reversed the judgment of the learned District Judge and restored the order of the Civil Judge.
3. Main contention of the learned counsel before us is that the piece of land which was expressly purchased by the respondent for residential purpose cannot be converted to agricultural use and no claim for pre-emption can be based on this ground; that the document of sale is void under the Land Reforms Regulation M. L. R. 115 and it cannot furnish valid basis for claim of pre-emption and that the respondent cannot seek benefit from hi own illegal act.
4. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and fin that out of the total area, 1 kanal and 8 marlas is still used for agricultural purposes while on 10 marlas the respondent had constructed a house and thus the area left out is still used for agricultural purposes. Even the Revenue Record shows that seasonal crops are sown on the part of land which has not been built upon and there was no evidence before the Court that the land of the respondent is contiguous or not in the midst of village Abadi. The argument of the learned counsel regarding the validity of the sale is also without any legal force as the law of pre-emption is the law of substitution and no other Court except the authority concerned under M. L. R. 115 can go into the question of the validity of the sale. The petition is without any merit and is, therefore, dismissed.
Cited by 7 cases
- MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs NISHAT AHMAD 1994 CLC 1357
- GHULAM HUSSAIN ARSHAD and others vs ALLAH DITTA and others 1993 SCMR 1486
- LADHA And 4 Other vs KARIM BAKHSH And Another 1987 PLD Lahore 671
- LADHA and 4 others vs KARIM BAKHSH and another 1987 PLD Lahore 671
- GHULAM FATIMA vs SHUKAR DIN 1987 MLD 327
- RAJA KHIZAR HAYAT AND OTHERS vs SALEH MUHAMMAD 1986 PLD Lahore 242
- MUHAMMAD YUSUF vs BASHIR AHMAD and others 1986 MLD 524