GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others vs ALI MUHAMMAD and others
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit initially dismissed by the trial court but subsequently decreed by the Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar, a decision upheld by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The core legal question concerns whether the right of pre-emption was exercisable at the time of the sale of the disputed land, which is located in a colony area. The petitioner contends that a 1944 notification prohibiting the exercise of pre-emption rights in the colony area was still in force at the time of the sale, citing the mutation date of 22-11-1974, whereas a notification withdrawing the 1944 prohibition was only published in the official Gazette on 15-3-1974. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner's contention regarding the non-existence of the right of pre-emption on the date of the sale required further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the right of pre-emption existed at the material time of the transaction.
- Does the right of pre-emption exist in a colony area where a 1944 notification prohibited such rights?
- At what point in time is a sale considered completed for the purpose of exercising the right of pre-emption?
- Does the publication of a notification withdrawing a prohibition on pre-emption rights operate retrospectively?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit which was dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal it was decreed by the Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar; the High Court did not interfere with the judgment of the Additional District Judge in provisional jurisdiction.
2. The only question raised in support of this petition is that the day on which the*sale took place there was a notification in force which disallowed the exercise of the right of pre-emption. It is be noticed that the land in dispute falls in the colony area. By operation of a Notification issued in 1944 no right of preemption existed in the said area. By a notification made on 12-2-1974 but published in the official Gazette on 15-3-1974 the notification of 1944 was withdrawn. The case of the petitioner is that the sale was completed on a day when the notification was still in force. His case finds prima facie support from the fact that the mutation with regard to the sale was entered on 22-11-1974. In the circumstances, his contention that no right of pre-emption existed in the respondent on the day the sale took place needs consideration. Leave to appeal is granted.