AURANGZEB KHAN vs ABDUR REHMAN
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision and denied a decree for possession based on a right of pre-emption. The petitioner, a contiguous owner, sought to pre-empt a land sale, while the respondent-vendee resisted the claim by asserting their status as a recorded owner in the Shamilat Deh Ghair Mumkin Kassi. The trial court and the High Court held that this ownership share placed the vendee on par with the pre-emptor, thereby defeating the claim. The core legal question was whether ownership of a share in such common land (Kassi) entitles a vendee to successfully resist a pre-emption claim. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, holding that co-sharership in Kassi or Lakhti does entitle a party to successfully resist a pre-emption claim. The Court relied on established precedents confirming that such ownership status is sufficient to defeat a claim of superior pre-emption rights based on contiguity. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as lacking merit.
- Does ownership of a share in Shamilat Deh Ghair Mumkin Kassi entitle a vendee to resist a claim of pre-emption?
- Can a contiguous owner successfully pre-empt a sale against a vendee who holds a share in Shamilat Kassi?
ORDER
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The petitioner, an unsuccessful preemptor, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 18th May, 1983 whereby a civil revision petition filed by him was dismissed and he was not granted a decree for possession on account of superior right of pre-emption.
2. ' The respondent purchased land in Khasra No,633 in village Chitti Dhakhi, tehsil Haripur, district Abbottabad. The petitioner pre-empted the sale on the ground of his being a contiguous owner.
3. The vendee resisted it on the ground of his being a recorded owner in the Shamilat Deh Ghair Mumkin Kassi. The trial Court held that such an ownership of a share in the Shamilat Kassi brought the vendee at par with the pre-emptor and hence disallowed the claim of the petitioner and dismissed his suit. In revision the same finding was affirmed. Hence this petition.
4. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as held in Mughal Baz Khan v. Sher Afzal Khan 1980 SC MR 692 a share in the Shamilat thoroughfare like Kassi did not entitle the sharer thereof to either claim a right of pre-emption or to resist successfully such a right when advanced by a contiguous pre-emptor.
5. The decisions of this Court in Syed Alam v. Rabia Gul 1981 SCMR 59, Zia Farhat Awan etc. v.
6. Aurangzeb etc. 1981 SCMR 824 and Ahmad Khan v. Sattar Din PLD 1981 SC 148 as also in C.P. 599- R/ of 1983 lay down the law that such a co-sharership in Kassi or Lakhti does entitle to claim successfully or resist successfully pre-emption claim. The legal points sought to be raised by the petitioner stand decided by this Court and the High Court has followed the law thus laid down.
7. ' There is no merit in the petition and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN vs FATEH KHAN and others 2015 NLR Civil 71, 2015 PLJ SC 112, 2015 PLD Supreme Court 27