MUHAMMAD RAZZAQ And Others vs MUHAMMAD DIN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerns whether a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit must maintain the right of pre-emption up to the date of the decree, and the effect of land being included within municipal limits prior to the decree. The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff must possess the right to pre-empt on the date of sale, the date of filing the suit, and the date of passing the decree. Since 15 Kanals of the disputed agricultural land became part of the municipal limits of Sialkot before the decree—thereby exempting it from the law of pre-emption—the dismissal of the suit regarding that portion was correct. The key principle laid down is that the loss of the right of pre-emption due to inclusion of land in municipal limits before the trial court's decree defeats the claim pro tanto.
- Must a plaintiff maintain the right of pre-emption on the date of the passing of the decree?
- What is the effect of including pre-empted agricultural land within municipal limits before the decree is passed?
- Does the inclusion of suit land in a municipal area exempt it from the law of pre-emption?
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 9-12-1978 of the Lahore High Court, whereby petitioner's Regular Second appeal was dismissed.
2. The petitioners had filed a suit for pre-emption. Before the decision of the suit, however, a notification was issued, the effect of which was that 15 Kanals out of the pre-empted agricultural land was included in Municipal limits of Sialkot city on account of which no right of pre-emption could be claimed in regard thereto. Accordingly a decree only for remaining land was passed. The petitioners challenged the dismissal of the suit with regard to 15 Kanals in First and Second Appeal.
Having failed to achieve success they have now sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel agrees that in order to succeed in the suit the plaintiffs should not only have right to pre-empt on the date of the sale and on the date of the filing of the suit but also on the date of the passing of the decree. He also agrees that before passing of the decree in the suit 15 Kanals of land became part of the municipal area and thus was exempted in this case from the law of pre-emption. Therefore, on the date of the decree he could not exercise right of pre-emption with regard to the disputed 15 Kanals. That being so, the dismissal of his suit regarding the disputed area was rightly upheld by the High Court. This petition fails and leave to appeal is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.