Law: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, (X of 1987)

Section: 6(b)(II), 6(c)(III),13(1)(a)

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

  Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act (X of 1987)--- ----Ss. 6(b)(II), 6(c)(III) & 13(1)(a)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115--Suit for possession through pre-emption---Status of pre-emptor as Shafi Khalit (contiguous owner) and Shafi Jar (participant in irrigation)---Determination--Talb-i-Muwathibat---Burden of Proof---Non-production of informer as witness--Effect---Suit was decreed concurrently---Revisional court overturned the decisions of both the courts below---Validity---Mere construction of a retaining wall or possession over part of a separate khasra cannot establish contiguity unless the appellant had ownership of the intervening land, which he did not--Claim of appellant being Shafi Jaar was contradicted by the physical layout of the land, as the appellant s land was at a higher elevation than the water channel making irrigation from a common source impossible---Informer was never produced before the Trial Court, which omission was neither explained nor justified---Importance of the informer s evidence could not be ignored, as it formed the basic foundation for the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat--Without evidence of informer, the appellant s version regarding the time, place and manner of acquiring knowledge of the sale remained uncorroborated---Nonproduction of the informer may be fatal and may result in an adverse inference being drawn against the pre-emptor---Requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat under Section 13 of the Act, therefore, remained unproved---High Court rightlyset aside the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding Talb-i-Muwathibat in its revisional jurisdiction. Abdul Rehman v. Haji Ghazan Khan 2007 SCMR 1491 and Subhanuddin and others v. Pir Ghulam PLD 2015 SC 69 rel. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act (X of 1987)--- ----S.13(3)---Talb-i-Ishhad---Proof---Non-fulfillment of requirements of service of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad---Effect---Appellant did not personally send the notice, instead he handed it over to informer, who did not appear to confirm that any notice was dispatched---Notice was not sent through registered cover acknowledgment due, as specifically required under the statute---Such procedural lapses…