MUHAMMAD RAFIQ Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE
This petition arises from a judgment of the High Court concerning the interpretation of the words "Deh" or "Mauza" in the context of pre-emption rights, specifically whether alleging ownership in the "Deh" satisfies the requirement of being an owner in the estate. The core legal question addressed is whether "Deh" and "Mauza" are synonymous with the term "estate". The Supreme Court held that "Deh" and "Mauza" are indeed the Urdu equivalents for the word "estate", as supported by the Land Record Manual. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the view of the High Court that ownership in the Deh constitutes ownership in the estate for pre-emption purposes. The key principle laid down is that the terms "Deh", "Mauza", "Mahal", and "estate" are interchangeable in revenue and pre-emption jurisprudence.
- Whether the words "Deh" and "Mauza" are equivalent to the word "estate"?
- Does alleging ownership in the Deh satisfy the requirement of being an owner in the estate for pre-emption?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑ ‑The short question in this petition is as to the meaning of the word "Deh" or "Mauza" as it was contended before the High Court that the pre‑emptor had not alleged that he was an owner in the estate but that an owner in the Deh. The High Court held that the words "Deh" and "Mauza" are the Urdu words for the word "estate", and dismissed the appeal as this was the only question raised.
2. We had issued a notice to the counsel for the respondent and he appeared and supported the. judgment of the High Court. H referred to us paragraph 7.69 of the Land Record Manual at page 338 wherein the words "Mahal", "Deh" and "Mauza" had been show equivalent to the word "estate".
3. There is, therefore, no substance in this petition, which is dismissed.
4. M .B . A . /M‑471/S Petition dismissed.