MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others vs Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR and others
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court which dismissed a civil revision petition arising out of a pre-emption suit. The suit for pre-emption of land was decreed in favour of the respondents and upheld through successive appeals before the appellate court and the High Court. The core legal question raised before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners, as vendee-defendants, were entitled to compensation for a fruit garden planted on the disputed land. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was a concurrent finding of fact that the garden in existence was prior to the sale, rendering any claim of compensation based on planting it as tenants futile and without basis. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding pre-emption and improvements made on the land, unsupported by evidentiary basis, do not warrant interference by the Supreme Court.
- Whether compensation can be claimed for a fruit garden allegedly planted by a vendee prior to a pre-emption sale?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding improvements made on pre-empted land?
- Can a vendee claim tenant status for planting a garden when no factual basis exists on the record?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 13th April, 1983 of the Peshawar High Court; whereby a Civil Revision Petition, was dismissed.
2. ' The case has arisen out of a suit for pre-emption of land decreed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs on 31st of May, 1975. The petitioners' (vendee-defendants) appeal was dismissed. They also failed in revision before the High Court. They have now sought leave to appeal. Their learned counsel has urged only one point namely that the petitioners having planted a fruit garden in the land in dispute, the issue regarding compensation in that behalf has not been decided by the learned Courts below in accordance with law.
3. There is a finding of fact that the garden in question was in existence before the sale which was the subject-matter of the pre-emption suit. The attempt of the learned counsel to show that the petitioners could have been granted the compensation by rendering a finding that they had planted the garden as tenants before the sale in question is futile. There is no basis for such a finding nor any serious attention can be given to this plea. This petition is accordingly dismissed.