FATEH MUHAMMAD and others vs ALIF DIN through legal Heirs
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land in Tehsil Chakwal, which was dismissed by the trial court, the appellate court, and subsequently the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to a right of pre-emption over land purchased by the respondents' predecessor-in-interest, Alif Din. The Supreme Court observed that Alif Din was a person displaced and affected by the construction of the Mangla Dam. Under specific governmental instructions issued by the Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, individuals affected by the Mangla Dam project were exempted from the right of pre-emption regarding the sale of agricultural land within specified acreage limits and immovable property below a certain value. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly applied this exemption, as the petitioners themselves admitted in their plaint that the respondent's predecessor was a Mangla Dam affectee. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that statutory or administrative exemptions regarding pre-emption rights for displaced persons must be upheld when the factual criteria are met.
- Does a right of pre-emption exist against the sale of land to persons displaced and affected by the construction of the Mangla Dam?
- Can a court dismiss a pre-emption suit based on administrative notifications exempting specific classes of persons from pre-emption claims?
- Section 35-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 25-5-1988; whereby a regular second appeal arising out of a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioners herein, was dismissed.
2. ' The disputed land measuring 159 kanals 17 marlas situated at Mauza Mohra Sheikhan, Tehsil Chakwal being an evacuee property, settled upon the names of Taj Muhammad and Abdul Ghafoor sons of Allah Ditta vide mutation No,143 attested on 28-4-1966. They sold the land in dispute to Alif Din (deceased) predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein for a sale consideration of Rs,23,000. The plaintiffs/petitioners brought a suit for possession through pre- emption before the Court of Civil Judge, Chakwal against the defendants/respondents. The respondents contested the suit and on the pleadings of the parties the learned civil Judge framed several contesting issues. After recording the evidence of the parties the suit of the petitioners was dismissed with costs. An additional cost to be paid to the respondents of Rs,150 under section 35-A was also imposed on the plaintiffs/petitioners, vide order, dated 10-11-1967. Appeal of the petitioners before the District Judge was also dismissed but the decree of the Civil Judge, passed in favour of the respondents was modified to the effect that the suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners was dismissed without costs. R.SA. Of the petitioners before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench also failed vide impugned order.
3. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the judgments of the Courts below. We have observed that Alif Din (deceased) predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was affected by the construction of the Mangla Dam because clear cut instructions in this regard were issued by the Member board of (Revenue) West Pakistan that no right of pre- emption shall exist with respect to the sale of agricultural land not exceeding 50 acres in a canal area irrigated land or 100 acres in non-irrigated area and other immovable property not exceeding the value of Rs,10,000 in favour of those persons who are displaced from Azad Jammu and Kashmir and affected by the Mangla Dam, vide Notification LR:IV No, 5668-65/3306, vide Exh..D-2 and Exh.D2/1. The position of Alif Din (deceased) being an affectee and displaced person was notified vide letter No,R-1 (14)/4395 dated 28-4-1967 vide Exh. D-1. Moreover, this fact is also admitted in their plaint by the petitioners themselves that the predecessor-ininterest of the respondents was an affected person from the construction of the Mangla Dam. Keeping in view this fact into consideration the learned Courts below have concurrently decided the crucial issue on this point in favour of the respondents and dismissed the suit and appeal of the petitioners which was rightly not interfered with by the learned High Court in regular second appeal.
4. ' The result is that this petition has no merit for consideration of this Court and is accordingly dismissed.