LAL KHAN vs FAIZ AHMAD And Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a Civil Revision arising from a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a vendee-defendant, possessed a superior right of pre-emption under the Land Reforms Regulation by virtue of being a tenant on the land in dispute. The petitioner argued that as a tenant on a portion of the joint Khatas, he should be deemed a tenant of the vendors, thereby granting him a preferential right. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's tenancy was recorded under different individuals, not the vendors, and specifically covered only 97 Kanals of a larger 424-Kanal holding. Crucially, the land sold by the vendors did not include the 97 Kanals cultivated by the petitioner. The Court affirmed that under paragraph 25(3)(d) of the Land Reforms Regulation, a tenant can only claim a superior right of pre-emption in respect of the specific land comprised in their tenancy. As the land sold was distinct from the petitioner's tenancy, the pre-emption suit was correctly decreed.
- Can a tenant claim a superior right of pre-emption under the Land Reforms Regulation for land that is not comprised within their specific tenancy?
- Does a tenant of specific land within a joint Khata automatically qualify as a tenant of the vendors who sell a different portion of that same Khata?
- Paragraph 25(3)(d), Land Reforms Regulation 1972
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 29th January, 1986, of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner's Civil Revision arising out of a pre- emption suit, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner is vendee-defendant. According to the facts given by the learned counsel he purchased the land in dispute from Arif and Mst. Faiz Ilahi. Faiz Ahmad and Mohammad Mukhtar the collaterals of the vendors (respondents herein) filed suit for pre-emption. The petitioner's defence was that he being a tenant in respect of the land in dispute had a preferential right under paragraph 25(3)(d) of the Land Reforms Regulation. The suit was decreed. The petitioner's appeal and Revision having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel has reiterated the same contention as was raised before the High Court, namely, that the land in dispute was sold from joint Khatas wherein the verdors had share in every parcel of those Khatas and the petitioner being a tenant on 97 Kanals out of 424 Kanals comprised in those Khatas shall be deemed to be tenant of the vendors notwithstanding the fact that his tenancy was under two different co-sharers namely, Ji--3wadda and Allah Bakhsh. Therefore, he would also be deemed to be the tenant under the vendors. The High Court fell into error and it held otherwise; namely, that the petitioner was not a tenant under the vendors.
4. It is not denied that the petitioner was recorded as tenant under Jindwadda and Allah Bakhsh and was not recorded as tenant of the vendors namely, Arif and Mat. Faiz Ilahi, His tenancy does not comprise of the whole of the land in the four Khatas i.e. 424 Kanals. He claims to have cultivated only 97 Kanals. It is obvious that those 97 Kanals have not been sold by the vendors, therefore, even if it be assumed that the vendors sold unpartitioned share it was from the land other than the 97 Kanals, which the petitioner held as tenant under Jindwadda and Allah Bakhsh. Under paragraph 25(3)(d) of the Regulation the petitioner could claim superior right of pre-emption only "in respect of the land comprised in his tenancy" i.e., in respect of the 97 Kanals, which he held under Jindwadda and Allah Bakhah. The same not having been sold by the vendors the suit of the pre- emptors was rightly decreed in their favour.
5. No justification has been made out for interference. This petition accordingly, is dismissed.
Cited by 5 cases
- BAHARO alias BAHAR ALI vs GHULAM RASOOL through L.Rs, and others 2010 CLC 754
- SULTAN SHAH and 5 others vs PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Government of Sindh, Revenue Department and 4 others 2010 YLR 528
- SHARIF MUHAMMAD vs KHUDA BAKHSH Represented By His Legal Heirs And 3 1989 CLC 2092
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF 1989 SCMR 796
- ANWAR ALI and 4 others vs HAYAT 1989 SCMR 821