REHMAT ALI And Others vs NAEEM AHMAD And Other
This petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land. The pre-emptor claimed a superior right of pre-emption on the basis of being a co-sharer in the relevant joint khata. The trial court initially dismissed the suit as time-barred and held that the pre-emptor failed to establish a superior right. However, the District Judge reversed these findings on appeal and decreed the suit, a decision which was subsequently upheld by the High Court in a revision petition. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether a co-sharer in a joint khata loses his status as a co-owner of agricultural land merely by constructing a house on a portion of the purchased land. The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the High Court and District Judge, holding that since the land largely remained agricultural and used for crops, constructing a structure on part of the joint land did not divest the pre-emptor of his status as a co-owner. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Does constructing a structure on a portion of land in a joint khata deprive a person of their status as a co-owner of agricultural land for pre-emption purposes?
- Whether agricultural land retains its character when part of it is used for residential construction while the rest is cultivated?
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 7-10-1984 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the revision petition- preferred by the petitioners.
2. One Ghulam Jillani, now dead, filed a suit for pre-emption arising out of a sale of agricultural land on the ground inter alia that he was a co-sharer in the land sold. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court for the reasons that it was barred by time and that the superior right claimed by him had not been established. On appeal, the District Judge reversed these findings and decreed the suit. The petitioners who were the vendees filed a revision petition in the High Court but without any success. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. It is not disputed that Ghulam Jillani was a co-sharer in the Khata relating to the land in dispute.
However, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that Ghulam Jillani had purchased land in the Khata for the construction of a house and that he had constructed a house thereon. Consequently, he could not be regarded as a co-owner in agricultural land. We find little merit in this contention.
The learned Single Judge in the High Court and the District Judge have found that the land purchased by Ghulam Jillani continued to be for most part agricultural and was being used for sowing different crops. That being so, the mere fact that he had raised a structure on a part of the land in the joint Khata would not detract from his status as co-owner of agricultural land. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.