NUR AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD YUSUF KHAN
This appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the High Court upholding the maintainability of a pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land purchased by confirmed allottees. The core legal question was whether the sale of evacuee property by a confirmed allottee was subject to right of pre-emption and whether civil courts had jurisdiction to entertain such suits. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding, based on precedent, that the sale of land by a confirmed allottee of evacuee property is pre-emptible and that civil courts possess jurisdiction over such matters. The Court further held that land not declared as Katchi Abadi by the Chief Settlement Commissioner does not fall within the definition of the Transfer of Evacuee Lands (Katchi Abadi) Act 1972 so as to bar pre-emption. The key principle laid down is that confirmed allottees' sales of evacuee property are amenable to pre-emption laws.
- Whether the sale of evacuee property by a confirmed allottee is pre-emptible?
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a pre-emption suit regarding evacuee property?
- Whether land not declared as Katchi Abadi by the Chief Settlement Commissioner is exempt from pre-emption under the Transfer of Evacuee Lands (Katchi Abadi) Act 1972?
- Transfer of Evacuee Lands (Katchi Abadi) Act 1972
1. QASIR KHAN. J. By a registered sale deed dated the 6th of November 1962 Nur Ahmad and five others (appellants herein) purchased 65 kanals and 4 marlas of land situated in Mauza Kotli Jodh Singh, Tehsil and District Gujranwala, from one Karar Hussain (respondent No. 3) for Rs. 16.300, Abdul Latif pre‑empted the sale. He died during the pendency of the sultan Muhammad Yusuf and Mst Piyari (respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) were impleaded as his legal representatives.
2. Tire defendants vendees contested the suit arid the following two preliminary issues were framed:‑----
(1) Whether the suit was within time.
(2) Whether the sale was not pre‑emptible.
3. The first issue was dropped as it was not pressed by the vendees because the suit was apparently within time. So far as the second issue is concerned the land was evacuee property and the vendees were confirmed allottees he learned Senior Civil Judge therefore by his order dated the 20th of November 1965 held that under the circumstances the land was not exempt from pre‑emption.
4. The vendees went up in revision to the High Court and the learned Judge in the High Court relying on the authority reported in Sher Muhammad v. Azmat Ali (P L D 1968 Lah. 1171) upheld the finding of the learned Senior Civil Judge and dismissed the revision petition.
5. Nur Ahmad and others the vendees filed a petition for special leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment of The High Court. Since in a number of similar petitions leave to appeal had been granted by this Court, leave to appeal was granted to the petitioners also or, the 11th of July 1909 to consider the question as to whether the sale of evacuee property was pre- emptible or not.
6. Mr. Maqbool Elahi, learned Advocate for the appellants and Moulvi Ehsanul Haq for the respondents heard. The paint in question has been settled by a decision of the Full bench of this Court reported in Fazal Elahi v. Muhammad Munawar (P L D 1973 S C 347) wherein it has been held that the sale of land in the case of a confirmed allottee was pre-emptible. Learned counsel for the appellants also feebly argued that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit but this assertion of his also stands negative by the aforesaid authority of this Court. Learned counsel further contended that the land was liable to be resumed under the Transfer of Evacuee Lands (Katehi Abadi) Act (XIIII of 1972 are under the circumstances its sale could not therefore be pre‑empted. There is no force in this contention as well as the land in dispute was not covered under the definition of Katchi Abadi having not been declared as such by the Chief Settlement Commissioner.
7. There is thus no force in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs as the appeal has been decreed on the question of law only.
8. Appeal dismissed.