2003 PLP 215 (MLD)

Section 31 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1991 has no nexus with section 30 thereof. If at all when read in the light of section 13 (read with section 6) of the Act, provision of section 31 may be pressed by a vendee‑defendant to post pre‑emptor with a positive knowledge of sale with reference to performance of Talb‑e‑Muwathibat as prescribed in section 13 of the Act. Charges for the notice are payable by vendee and recoverable from him. Thus vendee, in case Talb‑e‑Muwathibat has been made at a point of time after two weeks of registration of sale‑deed, can show either by proof or with reference to statutory presumption attached to performance of public functions that a notice was given in terms of section 31 and that pre‑emptor will be deemed to be posted with knowledge of sale with reference to the point of time mentioned in section 31 of the Act. Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th April, 2002. This judgment shall decide C. R. No.143/96 to C. R. No.147/96 as common questions are involved. In all these cases through five sale deeds bearing Nos.272 to 276 registered on 20‑6‑1993 the respondent purchased the suit land involved in each of these cases. On 17 11‑ 94 the petitioner filed suits for possession by pre‑emption. In the plaint it was stated that the petitioner could not acquire knowledge of the sale because of the failure of the Registrar to affix a notice in accordance with provisions of section 31 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1991. Since the suit was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed in section 30 of the said Act, the respondents in all these cases filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The learned trial Court finding the suit to be barred by law, proceeded to reject the plaint vide orders dated 11‑4‑1995. Decree sheets were also prepared. First appeals filed by the respondent were dismissed by the learned District Judge, Toba Tek Singh on 20‑9‑1995. 2. Learned counsel contends that sections 30 and 31 of the said Punjab Pre‑emption Act. 1991 are complimentary to each other and are to be read together. The precise plea of the learned counsel that the period of limitation for filing a suit under the said Act would commence from the date when a proposed pre‑emptor has the knowledge and that this knowledge is to be determined with reference to the performance of the act of fixation of notice at a public place by the Registrar while registering the sale‑deed. 3. I have given some thought to the said submissions of the learned counsel. There its no doubt at all that whereas the sales in these cases were registered on 20‑6‑1993 the suits were filed on 17‑11‑1994 i.e. after about 17 months of the sale. The time prescribed for filing a suit under the said Act is four months and the date of commencement is the date of registration of the sale‑deed (in this particular case). Now the section also caters for a situation where the sale takes place by means of attestation of a mutation and also where neither the sale‑deed is registered nor a mutation is attested but the possession is delivered to the vendor under the sale. In the said two cases the said period of four months is to start from the date of attestation of mutation and the date of delivery of possession respectively. Clause (d) of section 30 is also relevant inasmuch as it does provide for commencement of limitation so prescribed in section 30 from the date when the pre‑emptor has the knowledge of the sale but this is so only if the sale is not made in any of the manner stated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the said section 30. 4. Section 31 of the said Act, on the other hand, ordains an officer registering the sale‑deed to give a public notice in respect of such registration within two weeks of the registration. Subsection (2) of section 31 lays down that such a notice shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given if it is displayed on a main entrance of a mosque and on any other public place of. the village or place where the property is situated. The provision appears to be couched in a mandatory term since the word "shall" has been used. However, neither the said section 31 nor any other provision of the said Act of 1991 provides for any consequences for the non‑compliance of the said provisions. To be precise no penal effect stands spelt out in the entire Act for the non compliance of the provisions of section 31 thereof. On the other hand, section 3 of Limitation Act, 1908 read with section 29 thereof provides that a suit filed beyond limitation prescribed shall be dismissed. 5. The sales in these cases have been effected by means of registered documents. To my mind, there can be no concealment or even attempt at concealment by the vendor and the vendee i.e. the parties to the said registered documents, in this case for the reason that the proceedings are conducted by a public functionary at a public place and the copies can be obtained by any member of the public on paying the usual charges. To my mind section 31 of the said Act has no nexus with section 30 thereof. If at all when read in the light of section 13 (read with section 6) of the said Act, the said provision of section 31 may be pressed by a vendee‑defendant to post the pre‑emptor with a positive knowledge of the sale with reference to the performance of Talb‑e- Muwathibat as prescribed in section 13‑ of the said Act. It will be noted that the charges for the notice are payable by the vendee and recoverable from him. Thus the vendee, in case the Talb‑e‑Muwathibat has been made, at a point of time after two weeks of the registration of the sale‑deed, can show either by proof or with reference to statutory presumption attached to the performance of public functions that a notice was given in terms of section 31 and that the pre‑emptor will be deemed to be posted with the knowledge of the sale with reference to the point of time mentioned in section 31 of the Act. 6. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the provisions of section 31 or to be more precise, the non‑compliance thereof by the Registrar, cannot be pressed into service as a ground for extension of the limitation E prescribed by section 30 of the Punjab Pre‑emotion Act, 1991. All these five civil revisions are accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their 'own costs. S.A.K./M‑1224/L Revision dismissed.