ERIC ABLE vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal concerning the nature of a disputed parcel of land and its susceptibility to the right of pre-emption. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan is whether the subject property constitutes agricultural land, thereby rendering it subject to pre-emption, or whether it has acquired the status of a pond, which would exempt it from such claims. Additionally, the court must determine if the land's location within an urban area affects its pre-emptiable status. The petitioner contends the land is a pond and not agricultural, while the respondent argues it remains recorded as agricultural land. Finding that the conflicting contentions regarding the classification of the land and its legal status require a deeper examination of the evidence and existing jurisprudence, the Court granted leave to appeal to resolve the controversy. Pending the final adjudication of these issues, the Court directed both parties to maintain the status quo regarding the property in dispute.
- Does land classified as a pond qualify as agricultural land for the purposes of pre-emption?
- Is land situated in an urban area subject to the right of pre-emption?
- Can a property recorded as agricultural land be exempted from pre-emption based on its physical status as a pond?
ORDER
ABDUR RAHMAN KHAN, J.--- Submits that the disputed land has got the status of pond and neither it is agricultural land nor a subservient to agricultural. Relies on Tej Ram and others versus Tulsi and other 1898 Civil Judgments 48. It was next urged that if it is held to be agricultural land, even then it is not pre-emptiable as it is situated in urban area.
2. The learned counsel appearing on caveat submitted that the land in question has been recorded as agricultural land and it has not assumed the status of pond. He referred to Abdul Saeed and others versus Ch. Muhammad Latif Khan and others (1983 CLC 2491) to support his contention that the suit property being a pond was, not pre-emptiable.
3. In any case, in order to examine the above pleas in detail, we grant leave so as to resolve the controversy in the light of the cited judgments and documents available on the record.
4. Both the sides should maintain status quo.