1994 PLP 52 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 4 & 30‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption ‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Sale of land in dispute was made through compromise decree between vendor and vendee and possession of land was delivered to vendee on date of decree while sanction of mutation was made after more than three years from delivery of possession to vendee‑‑ Pre‑emption suit filed by pre‑emptor after one year from sanction of mutation, was barred by time as period of limitation in case was to start from date of delivery of possession and not from sanction of mutation. S. Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai for Petitioner. G.M. Bodla on behalf of M. Akhtar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th March, 1993. MUNIR A. SHAIKH, J: ‑‑Through this application the appellant/pre emptor seeks review of order dated 22‑6‑1988 passed in R.SA. No. 10 of 1980 through which the appeal was dismissed. To land in dispute was admittedly situated in a Colony area. The sale which was sought in the suit was made through compromise decree between the vendor and the vendee dated 10‑10‑1972 in pursuance of which Mutation No.99 was sanctioned by the Revenue Officer on 23‑12‑1975. The suit was filed by the petitioner on 22‑12‑1976.

2. Both the Courts below held that the suit was barred by time as the same had been filed one year after the delivery of possession of the land under the sale and that the sale having been made on 10‑10‑1972 through compromise decree the same was not pre‑emptible in view of Notification issued by the Board of Revenue under section 8 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act providing that no right of pre‑emption would be available in respect of any sale of any land in colony area of Bahawalpur. The said notification was withdrawn in the year 1974.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that since mutation was sanctioned in the year 1975 i.e. after the withdrawal of the said notification issued under section 8 of the Act therefore on the date of institution of suit the said bar had ceased.

4. The argument has no force because in a case of pre‑emption the plaintiff had to establish that he had right of pre‑emption on the date of sale, on the date of institution of the suit and on the date of decree passed by the trial Court. Since the sale in this case had taken place on 10‑10‑1972 therefore the petitioner had no right of pre‑emption as the same was exempted from pre emption through Notification issued by the Board of Revenue which was operative. The date of sanction of mutation is not the date of sale as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner because mutation is always sanctioned after the completion of sale.

5. Even on the question of limitation the petitioner has no case because admittedly the possession of land was delivered to the vendee at the spot on I3 10‑10‑1972 and period of limitation in such a case was to start from the date of delivery of possession and not the sanction of mutation.

6. For the foregoing reasons, we see no force in this petition therefore, the same is dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1182/L Review application dismissed.