SURRAYA BEGUM and others vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER and others
This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of constitutional petitions by the High Court, which upheld the decrees of the Revenue Court granting pre-emption rights to tenants. The petitioners purchased one kanal of agricultural land each, reciting in the sale deeds that the land was bought for the construction of houses. The respondents, being tenants of the land, filed suits to pre-empt the sales under paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 (MLR-115), which were decreed and upheld up to the Board of Revenue. The core legal question is whether agricultural land purchased for constructing houses is exempt from the right of pre-emption of tenants under MLR-115. The Supreme Court held that the suits were maintainable and the pre-emption decrees were lawful, reasoning that if the law-makers intended to exclude such land from pre-emption, an express provision would have been enacted under paragraph 25 of MLR-115. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
- Whether agricultural land purchased for the construction of a house is subject to the right of pre-emption by tenants under paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115?
- Does the purchase of one kanal of agricultural land for house construction exempt the transaction from pre-emption suits by tenants in possession?
- Paragraph 24, Martial Law Regulation No. 115
- Paragraph 25, Martial Law Regulation No. 115
and facts are common in all of them.
2. Land measuring 1 kanal in each case was purchased by the petitioners in these petitions through separate sale-deeds which was admittedly agricultural larid. In the sale deeds. It was recited that it had been purchased for construction of houses by each petitioner. The respondents' who were admittedly the tenants of the said land. Filed suits before the Revenue Court to pre-empt the said sales in each case under paragraph-25 of the MLR-115 having first right of pre-emption to the exclusion of the others. The suits were decreed by the Revenue Court through order dated 12.4.1982 which has been upheld upto the Board of Revenue and the Constitutional Petitions filed by the petitioners have also failed, which were dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 15.9.1999 by the High Court, against which leave to appeal has been sought,
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners frankly admitted that no doubt the land when sold was agricultural land and the respondents were tenants- qua the said land but argued that the suits were not maintainable, for it has been provided in paragraph-24 of MLR 115 that where a piece of land of 1 kanal was purchased or sold for the purposes of construction of house, the tenants in possession thereof could be evicted by a shorter procedure by issuing them notice for vacating the premises instead of, following the complete procedure of their eviction as provided in the said paragraph from the agricultural land, therefore, the intention of law was that sale of such a land which was purchased by the vendee for the purposes of construction -of house bona fidely was not-subject to right of pre-emption.
4. We are afraid. The argument is plainly unsound, for if this was the intention, it could be expressed by the law-makers by making a provision to that effect in paragraph-25 of MLR 115 which deals' with the right of pre-emption of tenant of agricultural land..
5. No other point was argued.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment dated 15.9.1999 of the High Court and Court below do not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional defect, therefore, these petitions have no merits which are accordingly dismissed and leave to .