Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)

Section: 3 , 15 , 21

Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)--- ---Ss. 3(1)(3)(4), 15 & 21---Suit for pre-emption ---Agricultural nature of land--Proof---Authentic revenue record produced on record, undisputedly proved that pre-empted land at time of sale as also at time of initiation of pre-emption suit, was an agricultural land where crops were being sown---Even if such land subsequently was included in municipal limits of town, same would not become urban immovable property for the purpose of pre-emption in which case it was obligatory to prove existence of custom of pre-emption in concerned locality-- Land in dispute despite such inclusion would retain its character of agricultural land which could be pre-empted by plaintiff having better right of pre-emption. PLD 1986 Lah. 242; PLD 1982 SC 96; 1989 CLC 225; PLD 1956 SC 309; 1981 SCMR 1183; 1985 SCMR 1; 1982 CLC 1643; 1982 CLC 208 and AIR 1924 Lah. 557 ref. Mian Dilawar Mahmood for Appellants. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th May, 1989. JUDGMENT LEHRASAP KHAN, J.--Land measuring 1 kanal and 6 marlas, the subject-matter of this litigation, which is situated in the revenue estate of Girjakh, suburb of Gujranwala Town, was purchased by Noor Muhammad and Abdul Ghafoor sons of Nawab Din, the respondents herein, through registered sale deed dated 9-1-1976. The appellants viz. Muhammad Abdullah and Muhammad Ali sons of Wali Muhammad pre-empted the sale claiming better right of pre-emption inter alia on the ground that they were owners in the estate while the defendants were strangers. The suit was, of course, resisted by the respondents who pleaded inter alia that they purchased the land for residential purposes. It was not an agricultural land and that it was in fact urban property and thus it was not pre emptible unless the pre-emptors proved the existence of custom of pre-emption in the locality in which it was situated.   Necessary issues arising out of the parties' pleadings were framed. After recording the parties' evidence and after hearing them, the learned trial Court found that the suit land was agricultural land and the sale was, therefore, pre- emptible.…