Law: Land Reforms Regulation, 1972

Section: 25 , 24 ( 6 ) (d)

  Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R.1151-- ---Para. 25---Pre-emption---Tenant's right of pre-emption ---Supreme Court's verdict in Sardar Ali's case reported as PLD 1988 SC 287, makes 31-7-1986 as the cut-off date for pre-emption rights of tenants and applies also to cases where decree upset by a higher Court was not obtained from a trial forum, but from another Court. [p. 1903] A Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R.115]-- ---Para. 24(6)(d)---Right of pre-emption ---Extent of---Proviso in para. 24 (6)(d) of M.L.R. 115, would apply to a decree obtained by a tenant of more than 100 kanals to the extent only of a subsistence holding; the whole decree would not be vitiated by the size of the tenancy being more than 100 kanals. Muhammad Rashid Chughtai for Petitioner. Rehmat Ali for Respondent.   FACTS One Muhammad Aslam sold his entire holding of 410 kanals 11 marlas through a registered sale-deed on 18-3-1981, for a sum of Rs.2 lac, to Qasim Khan, the present respondent. A suit for pre-emption to the extent of his tenancy of 240 kanals only was filed by Muhammad Hanif the petitioner on 5-4-1981. The AC/Collector dismissed the suit of the petitioner on 14-3-1982, on the ground that the petitioner was a lessee and not a tenant, and that the land falling in the Border Area was not pre-emptible. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) which was decided on 28-8-1983 in his favour. The respondent came to the Board of Revenue through a revision petition which was decided on 16-10-1984. The Board of Revenue remanded the case to the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) for a fresh decision, on the point that the status of the petitioner had not been determined by the Additional Commissioner, as the Additional Commissioner had not discussed the merits of the case. The Board of Revenue also directed that the Additional Commissioner should also examine the effect of the provisions of paragraph 24(6)(d) of MLR-115 on the present suit. The case was decided by the Additional Commissioner on 22-9-1985 in favour of the respondent. The present revision petition is against that order.          …