2000 PLP 1872 (MLD)

3. I have gone through the record, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I find that the sale sought to be pre‑empted was effected on 20‑10‑1968. The suit was filed by the appellants on 15‑7‑1969 and it was decreed by the learned trial Court on 26‑3‑1986. The reasons recorded by the learned Additional District Judge for finding that suit land was exempted from the application of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913 may be summed up as follows:‑‑ (i) The suit land is being irrigated through Lower Bari Doaab. Canal and vide Notification No.90, dated 2‑6‑1913 all Government lands in the Multan District situate within the irrigation boundaries of Lower Bari Doaab Canal were exempted from the Law of Pre -emption. (ii) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 was made applicable to whole of West Pakistan vide West Pakistan Amendment Ordinance (XXXVI of 1969) and by virtue of Notification No.196‑B, dated 28‑2‑1944 the land situate in any local area to which the said Act of 1912 stands applicable was exempted from the operation of the Pre‑emption Law. (iii) In formulating points (i) and (ii) the learned Additional District Judge has proceeded on the assumption that the suit land was Government land.

4. Section 4 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 may be reproduced here for facility of reference:‑‑

4. Application of the Act.‑‑‑This Act shall, unless the Provincial Government otherwise directs, apply to land to which the provisions of the Government Tenants (Punjab) Act, 1893, have been applied and to any other land to which the Provincial Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, apply it and which at the time of the Notification was the property of the Provincial Government. A bare reading of the said Act would show that the Act applies to 2 kinds of land:‑‑ (a) Land to which the provisions of the Government Tenants (Punjab) Act, 1893 applied; (b) to any other land to which the Provincial. Government may by notification in the official Gazette applied it; at the time of notification was the property of the Provincial Government.

5. It is nobody's case that the said Government Tenants (Punjab) Act, 1893 had ever been applied to the suit land. Any other land to which the said Act may be applied must be the property of the Provincial Government. Thus, the resolution of the controversy before me depends upon the determination as to whether the suit land was the property of the Provincial Government. Needless to add that the notification regarding the lands within the irrigated boundaries of Lower Bari Doaab Canal also applied to Government lands.

6. It is an admitted position on all hands that the land was sold to the respondents by Mst. Ghulam Zohran and Haq Nawaz who were admittedly the owners of the land. Exh.D.3 is the Fard Intikhab and it does record the said vendors to be the owners of the suit land. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently stresses that I should rely on a note appended to the said document that the village in which the land is situate was owned by the Government before Kharif, 1905. To my mind nothing turns on the said note. On the other hand, I find that the said goes against the plea of the respondents. According to the said note the village was owned by the Government before Kharif, 1905 and then became private ownership. Land revenue was assessed and "was being recovered thereafter. The said Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 was published on 21‑6‑1912. Its preamble reads that the law is being enacted to make better provisions for the colonization and administration of Government lands in the Punjab. Thus, from its very inception the said Act of 1912 did not and could not apply to the suit land which had become private ownership w.e.f. Kharif 1905 i.e. several years before the enactment of the said Act of 1912.

7. I am constrained to hold that the learned Additional District Judge has stretched conjectures to breaking point by holding that since at one time the land might have been or for that matter was owned by the Government, the said Act of 1912 and the various related notifications would remain operative qua the same. This, however, is against the very words of the statute itself which has been sought to be pressed into service in non‑suiting the respondents.

8. I, therefore, find that the learned Additional District Judge has deliberately misread the evidence on record and has gone miles out of way to non‑suit the appellants by misconstruing the law. The impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge being contrary to law cannot be sustained. Accordingly this R.S.A. is allowed. The judgment and decree, dated 20‑11‑1986 of learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal is set aside and that, dated 26‑3‑19$6 of learned trial Court is restored. In case the appellants have not already deposited the sum of Rs.91,238 they should deposit the same on or before 30‑6‑2000 after adjusting 1/5th or such other amount which they might have already deposited. In case the deposit is not so made till the date stipulated above, their suit shall stand dismissed with costs. For the moment the parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./M‑227/L Appeal allowed.