AYUB KHAN Versus HUSSAN FEROZ BEGUM
ORDER
RUSTAM S. SIDHWA J. ‑‑‑This is a petition riled by Ayub Khan and others petitioners seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 8‑11‑1988.
2. Ayub Khan and others, petitioners, purchased one‑eighth share of land bearing Khasra Nos. 19 to (sic) measuring GO Kanals 9 Marlas through Mutation No. 366 attested on 21‑11‑1979. Mst. Hussan Afroz Begum, respondent, claiming three superior rights of pre‑emption, pre‑empted the said sale. The respondent's suit was decreed on 25‑10‑1981. Her superior right as co‑sharer was also treated as established. The petitioners' appeal against the said decision was allowed on the basis that the sale was exempt from challenge under section 5(c) of the N.‑W.F.P. Pre‑emption Act, 1950. The respondent challenged the said decision in revision, which was accepted by the High Court on 21)‑1988 on the basis that the petitioners were not residents of the village where they had purchased the land' and that, as they had bought an area over 2 Kanals, the exemption was not available to them under section 5(c) of the N.‑W.F.P. Pre emption Act, 1950. .
3. On behalf of the petitioners it is submitted that Sikandar Khan and Ajab Khan, fathers of the petitioners, had purchased 228 Kanals of land in Chak Mirpur and that the petitioners were therefore, residents of Naqarchian, Chak Mirpur. It is further submitted that the mutation of the land effected in favour of the petitioners shows that Ayub Khan and Munsif Khan, petitioners, were recorded as owners "Bahisa brabar nisf" and Allah Dad Khan, Sarfraz Khan and Muhammad Riaz Khan, petitioners, as "Bahisa brabar nisf" and since the total land purchased was about 7 Kanals 11 Marlas, each of the petitioners was entitled to less than 2 Kanals each.
4. As regards residence in the village where the land was purchased, the findings of the learned Civil Judge and the High Court clearly show that the petitioners are the normal residents of village Ghurghushti, Tehsil and District Attock, but they attempted to claim themselves to be the residents of village Chak Mirpur. The Patwari Halqa even admitted that the fathers of the petitioners, who owned some landed property in Chak Mirpur, were shown in the Revenue records as residents of village Ghurgliushti. The evidence against the petitioners being strong, we do not consider the findings in this respect call for interference on this question of fact, which has been answered against the petitioners. As regards the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the same has some support from a decision of this Court in Mst. Nur Bibi and others v. Abdul Ghani (C.A. No.85‑P of 1983) decided by this Court on 24‑3‑1987, but in view of the fact that we have decided not to interfere in the matter, nothing turns on this submission. Taking all circumstances into consideration, we do not wish to interfere in this case. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.
A.A./A‑722/S Petition dismissed.