JAN MUHAMMAD And Others vs TAJ MASIH
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioners, who claimed a superior right of pre-emption as owners in the revenue estate, against the sale of suit land to Taj Masih, the sitting tenant. Although the trial court initially decreed the suit, the appellate court reversed the decision, relying on paragraph 25(3)(4) of the Land Reforms Regulation. The High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioners' revision petition. The Supreme Court considered the legal question of whether a tenant purchasing suit land possesses the first right of pre-emption so as to successfully resist claims by other pre-emptors under pre-emption laws. Affirming the High Court's view and relying on precedent, the Supreme Court held that a tenant of land enjoys the primary right of pre-emption and, upon purchasing the land himself, can lawfully defeat the pre-emption claims of all other potential pre-emptors. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Does a sitting tenant who purchases suit land have the first right of pre-emption over other pre-emptors?
- Can a tenant who purchases land successfully resist a pre-emption suit filed by an owner in the revenue estate under section 15 of the Pre-emption Act?
- Paragraph 25(3)(4), Land Reforms Regulation 1972
- Section 15, Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The suit land was sold to Taj Masih, the tenant in the land. The petitioners claiming to be an owner in the revenue estate, filed a suit to pre-empt the sale. The trial Court decreed the suit but on appeal the learned District Judge set aside the decree, relying on clause
(4) of sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, holding that the tenant had the first right of pre-emption if he purchases the land himself and he can resist the claim of all other pre-emptors who may have a superior right under section 15 of the Pre-emption Act. The pre-emptor filed a revision petition before the High Court. This petition too was dismissed on the ground that Taj Masih being the tenant in the land had the first right of pre-emption and in case he purchased the land himself he can successfully resist the claim of all other pre-emptors. In support of this view reliance was placed on this Court's decision in Muhammad Khan v. Muzaffar PLD 1983 SC 181. The view taken by the High Court is plainly right. No ground for interference exists.
2. Dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- FATEH MUHAMMAD Versus AHMAD 1988 SCMR 203