SUMANDAR KHAN vs NAWAB KHAN And Other
The petitioner, a vendee of agricultural land, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which refused to interfere with the revisional order of the Member, Board of Revenue in a pre-emption matter. The respondent-pre-emptor had successfully claimed pre-emption as a tenant and was directed to deposit the decretal amount by a specified date, having already made the statutory one-fifth deposit under section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. Subsequently, the pre-emptor applied for and obtained a refund of the one-fifth deposit by stating he was abandoning his pre-emption right, but later deposited the full decretal amount within the stipulated time. The core legal question concerned whether the withdrawal of the section 22 deposit violated the statutory requirements and terms of the decree. The Supreme Court held that the interpretation of section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act and strict compliance with the terms of the decree warranted an authoritative pronouncement. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal to examine the legal implications of withdrawing pre-emption deposits.
- Must a deposit made under section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act remain intact until the pre-emption suit is decided and the decree is complied with?
- Does the withdrawal of a one-fifth pre-emption deposit amount to an abandonment of pre-emption rights?
- Whether strict compliance with the terms of a pre-emption decree requires the initial statutory deposit to be maintained throughout the proceedings?
- Section 22, Punjab Pre-emption Act
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, a vendee of agricultural land, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 26-6-1984, refusing thereby to interfere with the revisional order of the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 20-9-1982.
2. The petitioner unsuccessfully contested the claim of Nawab Khan, the respondent, to pre-empt the suit land. The respondent was held to be tenant and allowed to pre-empt the sale on deposit of Rs.70, 000 by 21-8-1981 inclusive of one-fifth deposit made under section 22 of the Punjab Pre- emption Act. The date the suit was decreed was 21-7-1981. On 12th of August, 1981, the pre-emptor submitted an application in the trial Court that he abandoned his pre-emption right and sought withdrawal of one-fifth pre-emption money amounting to Rs.14,000 and obtained its refund. By second application made on 15-8-1981 he got permission and deposited Rs.70,000, the decretal amount due to be deposited before 21-8-1981. During the pendenciy of appeal filed by the petitioner he took an objection to this withdrawal of the deposit under section 22 and succeeded.
The Board of Revenue, however, reversed this success of the petitioner. His efforts to challenge the same in the constitutional jurisdiction failed. Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a deposit made under section 22 is required to remain intact till the suit is decided and the decree is complied with on success of the pre-emptor. In this case not only that requirement of the law remained unsatisfied, the decree- holder in his application for withdrawal of the amount gave a clear indication that he was surrendering or abandoning his pre-emption rights in the property and it was on that representation that he got the Court's order with regard to refund of the amount and if such had not been the representation, he would not have got the refund.
4. We consider that the question raised concerns the interpretation of the requirement of section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act and strict compliance with the terms of the decree, which deserve authoritative pronouncement. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. A sum of Rs.2,500 to be furnished as security. The appeal to be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file such additional documents as they consider necessary.