SHER MUHAMMAD vs GHULAM FARID and others
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal filed by a vendee challenging the dismissal of his writ petitions by the High Court in a pre-emption case. The core legal questions were whether the respondents could successfully claim a right of pre-emption based on a plea of tenancy and whether the suit land, classified as Banjar Qadeem, could be legally categorized as agricultural land subject to pre-emption. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding the factual determinations regarding the respondents' tenancy status to be unexceptionable. Regarding the nature of the land, the Court rejected the argument that land classified as Banjar Qadeem or used for growing grass is not agricultural. The Court held that growing grass serves as both a cash crop and a method for land improvement, and a prior classification as Banjar Qadeem does not preclude land from being considered agricultural for pre-emption purposes. Consequently, the Court found no legal error in the impugned judgment, refused leave to appeal, and dismissed the petitions with costs.
- Can land classified as Banjar Qadeem be considered agricultural land for the purposes of pre-emption?
- Does the cultivation of grass on land qualify it as agricultural land?
- Is a finding of fact regarding tenancy status in a pre-emption case subject to interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--These are vendee's petitions in pre-emption matters calling in question the dismissal of his two writ petitions by the High Court.
2. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that firstly the plea of tenancy on the basis of which the respondents/pre-emptors succeeded could not have been allowed; and secondly, that the land in question was not pre-emptible as it was Banjar Qadeem and not agricultural land. With the help of the learned counsel, we have perused the relevant record. The findings of fact in favour of the respondents' side on the question of tenancy at the relevant time are unexceptionable. The argument that only farming grass was sown in the suit land by the respondents prior to the transaction of sale, therefore, it could not be treated as agricultural land, has not impressed us. It is well-known that such grass is sown on some lands as a measure for improvement of their quality as also for earning cash; and thus, it has dual benefits as a cash crop and as also the treatment of land for improvement. The argument of the learned counsel that earlier the land in question was entered in the record as Banjar Qadeem it was not, therefore, agricultural land, is also devoid of force. This by itself is not a ground to hold that the suit land was not agricultural.
3. ' After hearing the learned counsel at some length, we do not find any error legal or otherwise in the impugned judgment. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused and the petitions are dismissed with costs.
Cited by 2 cases
- Moula Dino & Ors vs Metloob Hussain & Ors 2023 SHC 122
- Moula Dino and others vs Metloob Hussain and others 2023 PLJ Karachi 54