ABDULLAH vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT and 2 others
This appeal by leave arises from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondents concerning land purchased by the appellant through a registered sale-deed dated 13-3-1975. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents. At the leave stage, the appellant contended that the disputed land was not pre-emptible based on a notification relating to the former Bahawalpur State and the principle established in precedent case-law. The Supreme Court examined the evidence showing that the suit land vested in the Provincial Government at the relevant time and followed the precedent holding that such land is not pre-emptible. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the pre-emption decree suffered from an error of law and set it aside. The appeal was allowed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs. The key principle laid down is that land vesting in the Provincial Government at the relevant time is not subject to pre-emption.
- Whether land vesting in the Provincial Government at the relevant time is pre-emptible?
- Can a pre-emption decree be maintained in relation to land that is not pre-emptible?
' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J,---This appeal by leave arises in the following circumstances: ' The appellant purchased an area measuring 33 kanals, 6 marlas and 6 sarsahi situated in Chak No, 7/1-R, Haroonabad, District Bahawalnagar through a registered sale-deed dated 13-3-1975 from the heirs of one Nabi Bux. The respondents filed a suit for pre-emption. It stands decreed. At the leave stage it was inter alia contended on behalf the appellant that "the land in dispute was not pre-emptible in view of the Notification No, 74 dated 12th June, 1944 relating to the Bahawalpur State wherein the land in dispute was situated". Leave was granted on 5-9-1990.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the evidence of P.W. 1 and D.W.1 on record to show that the suit land vested in the Provincial Government at the relevant time. This being so, in view of the judgment of this Court in "Noor Muhammad through his Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Tufail and others" (1991 SCM R 512) it was submitted that the land was not pre-emptible.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents could not controvert the submission.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that since there is an error of law in so far as that the pre-emption decree has been passed in relation to the land which was not pre-emptible, the same is set-aside. The appeal is, therefore, allowed but in the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN 2009 SCMR 1256