1973 PLP 254 (SCMR)

WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑

The dispute between the parties is in respect of land measuring 103 kanals, 8 marlas situated in village Rasulpur, Chak No. 5, Tehsil Chunian, District Lahore, bearing Khata No.

77. It was sold by Khair Din respondent No. 3 to Hidayat and Jiwanan respondents Nos. I and 2, by registered sale deed dated the 17th August 1954, for Rs. 17,

000. The petitioner filed a suit for pre‑emption claiming superior right on the basis of co‑sharership in the khata and ownership in the Patti Kambohan in which the land was situated. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on the 17th March 1960, on the ground that the petitioner had superior right of pre‑emption as he was owner in the same path, namely, Patti Kambohan in which the land in suit was situated. This judgment was challenged in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Lahore, who, by judgment dated the 17th October 1960, accepted the same and reversed the trial Court's judgment and dismissed the suit holding that (i) Patti Kambohan was not a separate division for pre‑emption, and (ii) that the land was exempted from pre‑emption by virtue of notification issued under section 8 (ii) of the Punjab pre‑emption Act. The matter was then taken in Regular Second Appeal No. 40 of 1961 to the High Court which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on the 10th January 1972. Prayer for granting a certificate under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, was refused by order dated the 25th January 1972. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order. Raja Said Akbar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that Taraf Clerkabad originally known as Ktranian wala and later on Rasulpur, was a separate Revenue Estate consisting of two tribal groups, (i) Patti Kambohan, and (ii) Patti Jattan, earmarked for Kambohan Tribe and Jat Tribe respectively. The two tribal groups were based on tribal bond, which was the most unifying factor in the old Punjab. He further contended that the revenue record shows that Khasra Nos. 4843 and 2861 are contiguous to each other and in Patti Kambohan, which clearly means that the division of the village is chakbat, and not khetbat and the lands of the two pattis are in two different villages and not intermingled. This aspect of the case was considered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. In this connection, he observed that it is settled law that mere mention of pattis in the revenue record does not by itself prove that the village is divided into two sub‑divisions. For the purposes of pre‑emption within the meaning of section 15 (c) secondly, the mere word "patti" whether in the record or otherwise does not by itself establish a sub‑division of the village. In this connection, he has relied on the case of Gul Muhammad v. Saddar Din (P L D 1951 Lah. 437). The learned Single Judge has also gone into the history of the village as contained in Exh. D. 5, the Kafiayat‑e‑deh Malkan. According to him, it shows that persons from different villages and of different castes came to settle in this village. Shajra‑e‑Malkan, Exh. D. 1, shows that this Chak is a colony area and the tenure of this land is Bhai Chars: Reference was also made to Rampartap v. Krishan Singh (A I R 1937 Lah. 32), in which it was held that the fact that the pattis have separate lambardars for them is not conclusive to decide whether they are distinct sub‑divisions. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the petitioner had failed to establish that in the present case Patti Kambohan and Patti Jattan are in any way distinct sub‑divisions. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.