1982 PLP 457 (SCMR)

KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑Muhammad Khan (vendor) (defendant No. 2 in the suit) sold the land in dispute in two lots measuring 10 marlas each situated in the city of Multan, in the locality known as "Taraf Mubarik Awal" by means of two separate registered sale‑deeds dated 22‑6‑1956 and 26‑6‑1956, respectively to the vendee described therein. The petitioners filed two separate suits to pre‑empt the aforesaid sales on the ground that the land in dispute was an "agricultural land" and as such they had a preferential right to pre‑empt the same as against the concerned vendees. The suits were decreed by the, learned Civil Judge by two separate judgments dated 18‑12‑1958 and 19/24‑12‑1958, respectively.

2. The vendees filed appeals in each suit but without any success as the same were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, on 14‑10‑1959 by separate judgments.

3. The vendees then filed two Second Appeals being R. S. A. 109/1960 and R. S. A. 110/1960 which brought fruit and were accepted by the High Court on the 14th May, 1974, by 'a common judgment. The High Court held that the land in dispute was an "urban immovable property" and not "agricultural land" and as such the petitioners had no preferential right to pre‑empt the same. The petitioners have now come up in Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal bearing Nos. 625/74 and 626/74. The present order will dispose of both these petitions.

4. The only point argued by the learned counsel was that the High Court has erred in holding that the land in dispute was not an "agricultural land" and that it was an "urban immovable property". We have gone through the record as contained in the paper‑books and heard the learned counsel at length. It may be mentioned that the area involved was only ten marlas (in each case) and the High Court has, after perusal of the relevant record, held that a part of it was shown therein as "Ghair Mumkin Abadi". It was surrounded by houses, "Pucka metalled road and was located within the municipal limits of Multan City. The High Court referred to a large number of cases cited before it by the learned counsel for the parties for the purpose of the relevant' factors which in such cases are to be taken into the considera tion, and after referring to the same in the light of the facts and the circum stances of the present case held that the property in dispute was "urban immovable property" and further that "the perusal of the sale‑deeds and area mentioned therein obviously goes to show that the alienations were for small pieces of land for construction purposes". This view of the High Court appears to be well‑considered, which does not suffer from mistake of any legal principle in the matter of appreciation of evidence in cases of this type and is fully supported from the facts and features mentioned therein.

5. In the circumstances we do not think that this is a fit case for grant of leave. The result is that these petitions have no merit and are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.