Law: N. W. F. P. Pre-emption Act (XIV of 1950)

Section: 12

P L D 1957 (W. P.) Peshawar 36   Before Muhammad Shafi and Habibullah Khan, JJ     N. W. F. P. Pre-emption Act (XIV of 1950), S. 12--- Contiguous property--Agricultural land-Plaintiff'' must prove that he has property contiguous to each Khasra No. of land which is subject of suit.   Held, that each Khasra No. being distinct, if a suit is brought on the ground of vicinage, for possession by pre-emption of several Khasra Nos., the plaintiff must prove that he has pro perty contiguous to each one of them, and if he fails to do so, his suit qua the Khasra Nos., with which he has no contiguous property, must fail.   Qalandar Khan v. Hafiz Kazi Pir Muhammad P L D 1956 Pesh. 1; Genda Ram and another v. Ram Chand and another A I R 1924 Lah. 163; K. S. Muhammad Akbar Khan v. Zaidullah Khan P L D 1954 Pesh. 99; Woking Muslim Mission and Literary Trust, Lahore and The Civil & Military Gazette, Ltd., Lahore v. The Crown P L D 1556 F C 209 ref.   Abdush Shakoor v. Abdul Ghafur and another 6 I C 538 dissented from.   Date of hearing: 28th June 1956.     JUDGMENT   MUHAMMAD SHAFI, J.----The only question involved in Civil Revisions Nos. 57 to 62 of 1954, is, whether a person who institutes a suit for possession by pre-emption of several Khasra numbers,- on -the ground of vicinage, can succeed in law, if he has dot property adjacent to one of those Khasra numbers.   The facts which have given rise t6 the above question, are, that Sher Muhammad and Ghulam Qasim were the owners of (1) Khata No. 125, Khatauni No. 282, Khasra No. 30, (2) Khata No. 131, Khatauni No. 284, Khasra No. 31 (3) Khata No. 272, Khatauni No. 658/1, Khasra Nos. 32, 33, 35, 36, 38 and 44. By six mutations, attested on two different dates viz., 17th December 1951 and 13th March 1952, they sold away all these Khasra Nos. in favour of different persons. Ghulam Mohayuddin instituted six different suits for the possession of these Khasra Nos., on the ground that his property was adjacent to them, while this distinction was not enjoyed by any one of the vendees.   The suit was resisted on many grounds, but here, we are only concerned with one…