P L D 1962 (W (PLP)

ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑--The appellant, Maulvi Ata Ullah, brought a pre‑emption suit In respect of the sale of 329 kanals of land and one‑fourth of a well, measuring 10 marlas, situate in village Kumb in Tehsil Sadlqabad of the Rahimyarkhan District, effected by his nephews, Muhammad Fazil and Faizullah, in favour of Ghulam Muhammad, Ghulam Rasul and Talib Hussain, on the 10th of December 1955, for a consideration of Rs. 14,

000. Maulvi Ata Ullah claimed superior right of pre‑emption on the basis of relationship with the vendors and also because he was a khewatdar.

2. As the vendees belonged to the Sheikhupura District, it is conceded before us that they did not fall within the same agricultural tribe or group of agricultural tribes as the vendors in spite of the fact that they were jats. For this reason sanction of the Deputy Commissioner under section 3 (2) of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act was necessary for the sale and was obtained. Subsequently the Deputy Commissioner reviewed his order and withdrew the sanction. The vendees appealed to the Commissioner who set aside the order of review and restored the original order of the Deputy Commissioner dated the 18th of October 1956, granting sanction to the alienation. The validity of this sanction was challenged before the learned trial Judge, and he agreed with the contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff that the provisions of para. 37 of the Land Administration Manual had been contravened and for that reason the sanction was invalid. Having held the sanction to be invalid, the learned Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit under section 24 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act.

3. As already stated, the learned counsel for the appellant concedes that the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner was necessary in this case for the sale to take effect as a permanent alienation. If the sanction was validly given, then the case is obviously covered by section 9 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act which states that a right of pre‑emption shall not exist in respect of any sale sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner under section 3 (2) of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900. Mr. Pirzada, however, contended that section 5 of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, saves the right of pre‑emption, which is not affected by the sanction given by the Deputy Commissioner and the right could, therefore, be exercised notwithstanding the prohibition contained in section 9 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act. This contention overlooks the fact that the Punjab Pre‑emption Act is a later enactment (of the year 1913) and is in the nature of a special Act which would exclude the general provisions on the subject of pre‑emption contained in the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900. A similar question was raised in Ganga Ram Raja Ram (1916 P R 124) and the learned Judges observed that section 9 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913, must be held to repeal by implication so much of section 5 of the Punjab Alienation of Land Acct, 1900, as conflicts with itself and consequently no right of pre‑emption exists in respect of any sale sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner under section 3 (2) of the latter Act. We are in respectful agreement with these observations. The result, therefore, is that if in the present case the sanction given by the Deputy Commissioner is held to be valid, then the appellant's suit would have to be dismissed under section 9 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913.

4. If, on the other hand, the sanction granted by the Deputy Commissioner is held to be Invalid, as is the view of they trial Court, then section 24 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act comes into play, for fn that case the sale, requiring sanction as it does would be In contravention of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900. This section is in the following words :‑ "In a suit for pre‑emption in respect of a sale of agricultural land, if the Court finds that the sale is in contravention of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, Court shall dismiss the suit."

5. The plaintiff‑appellant is, therefore, in an unfortunate position in this case. He fails if the sanction has been validly given and he also fails if the sanction is not validly given. The plaintiff's suit was, therefore, rightly dismissed and there is no scope for interference in appeal, which is also dismissed with costs.

6. Mr. Pirzada finally submitted that the view of law taken by the learned Commissioner when accepting the appeal of the vendees against the order of the Deputy Commissioner withdrawing his original sanction was not correct, and that we should comment upon this aspect of the case for the guidance of the Revenue Officers. We find that for the purpose of deciding the present appeal, it is not necessary for us to examine the correctness or legality of the appellate order of the learned Commissioner, Multan Division, passed on the 3rd of May 1958 and for that reason we say nothing about it. S. B /A. H. Appeal dismissed.