NUR AHMAD AND 4 OTHER vs MUHAMMAD YUSUF KHAN AND 2 OTHER
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the right of pre-emption over land sold by a confirmed allottee of evacuee property. The appellants, who purchased 65 kanals and 4 marlas of land in Gujranwala, contested a pre-emption suit filed by the respondents, arguing that the land was evacuee property and thus not subject to pre-emption. The Senior Civil Judge and the High Court both ruled against the appellants, holding the sale pre-emptible. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the sale of evacuee property, specifically by a confirmed allottee, is subject to the law of pre-emption. Relying on the precedent established in Fazal Elahi v. Muhammad Munawar (PLD 1973 SC 347), the Court held that such sales are indeed pre-emptible. Furthermore, the Court rejected the appellants' argument that the land was exempt under the Transfer of Evacuee Lands (Katchi Abadi) Act 1972, noting that the land had not been declared a Katchi Abadi by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that confirmed allottees of evacuee property are subject to pre-emption claims.
- Is the sale of land by a confirmed allottee of evacuee property subject to the right of pre-emption?
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a pre-emption suit regarding evacuee property?
- Can land be exempted from pre-emption under the Transfer of Evacuee Lands (Katchi Abadi) Act 1972 if it has not been declared a Katchi Abadi by the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
- Transfer of Evacuee Lands (Katchi Abadi) Act 1972
1. QASIRKHAN. J. By a registered sale deed dated the 6th of November 1962 Nur Ahmad and five others (appellants herein) purchased 65 kanals and 4 marlas of land situated in Mauza Kotli Jodh Singh, Tehsil and District Gujranwala, from one Karar Hussain (respondent No. 3) for Rs. 16.300, Abdul Latif pre-empted the sale. He died during the pendency of the sultanMuhammad Yusuf and Mst Piyari (respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) were impleaded as his legal representatives.
2. Tire defendants vendees contested the suit arid the following two preliminary issues were framed:- ----
(1) Whether the suit was within time.
(2) Whether the sale was not pre-emptiable.
3. The first issue was dropped as it was not pressed by the vendees because the suit was apparently within time. So far as the second issue is concerned the land was evacuee property and the vendees were confirmed allottees he learned Senior Civil Judge therefore by his order dated the 20th of November 1965 held that under the circumstances the land was not exempt from pre- emption.
4. The vendees went up in revision to the High Court and the learned Judge in the High Court relying on the authority reported in Sher Muhammad v. Azmat A.I (PLD 1968 Lah. 1171) upheld the finding of the learned Senior Civil Judge and dismissed the revision petition.
5. Nur Ahmad and others the vendees filed a petition for special leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment of The High Court. Since in a number of similar petitions leave to appeal had been granted by this Court, leave to appeal was granted to the petitioners also or, the 11th of July 1909 to consider the question as to whether the sale of evacuee property was pre---emptiable or not.
6. Mr. Maqbool Elahi, learned Advocate for the appellants and Moulvi Ehsanul Haq for the respondents heard. The paint in question has been settled by a decision of the Full bench of this Court reported in Fazal Elahi v. Muhammad Munawar (PLD 1973 SC 347) wherein it has been held that the sale of land in the case of a confirmed allottee was pre-emptiable. Learned counsel for the appellants also feebly argued that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit but this assertion of his also stands negative by the aforesaid authority of this Court. Learned counsel further contended that the land was liable to be resumed under the Transfer of Evacuee Lands (Katehi Abadi) Act (XIIII of 1972 are under the circumstances its sale could not therefore be pre-empted.
7. There is no force in this contention as well as the land in dispute was not covered under the definition of Katchi Abadi having not been declared as such by the Chief Settlement Commissioner.
8. There is thus no force in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs as the appeal has been decreed on the question of law only.