SHANA MEER vs GUL NOOR And Another
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner Shana Meer regarding a share of land against the respondents Gul Noor and another. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court accepted the petitioner's appeal and decreed the suit. However, the Peshawar High Court accepted the respondents' civil revision and set aside the appellate court's judgment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner had a superior right of pre-emption based on contiguity against the respondents, whose status as tenants was established by the revenue record. The Supreme Court held that the revenue records, specifically Khasra Girdawaris which were not successfully rebutted or discredited through cross-examination of the Patwari, sufficiently established that the respondents were tenants of the disputed Khasra numbers. The petition was accordingly dismissed as frivolous with forfeiture of costs, affirming the principle that entries in the revenue record are accepted in pre-emption cases unless rebutted.
- Whether entries in the revenue record regarding tenancy are sufficient to establish the status of a tenant in pre-emption suits unless successfully rebutted?
- Does a pre-emptor with contiguous land succeed against established tenants of the suit land?
- What is the evidentiary value of Khasra Girdawaris when the Patwari is not cross-examined to discredit them?
ORDER
1. MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--Shana Meer filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against Gul Noor and another in respect of 1/4th share of the suit land measuring 78 Kanals 6 Marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 4288 to 4294. The learned Civil Judge vide his order, dated 14-3-1983 dismissed the suit. Appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge, Kohat Camp Kirk was accepted vide order, dated 27-2-1984 setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Courts. The respondents thereafter filed a civil revision in the Peshawar High Court which was accepted by a learned single Judge vide the impugned order, dated 3-12-1984 whereby the judgment and decree granted by the learned Additional District Judge was set aside.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged before us that the land of the petitioner is contiguous to all Khasra Nos. 4288 to 4294. We have examined the contention of the learned counsel. It has no force. A careful reading of the evidence on record 'would show that Khasra Girdawaris Exhs.
2. P.W.1/D-1 and C.W/1 were sufficient to show that the respondent were tenants of five Khasras Nos.
3. 4288, 4289, 4290, 4291 and 4292 in 1976-77 and there was no need to go in search of any other proof to establish that they were the tenants of the said Khasra numbers. Revenue record is accepted in cases of this nature unless successfully rebutted by the other side. In this case the Patweri was not cross-examined to discredit him on this score.
4. As a result this petition is dismissed being a frivolous petition and we order the forfeiture of the costs.