P L D 1975 Lahore 628 (PLP)

4. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel, para. 25 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 64 may be reproduced in extenso: "

25. Restrictions on alienation of Holdings.-(1) No person owning more than the area of an economic holding shall be allowed to alienate by sale, mortgage, gift or otherwise any portion of his holding which may reduce the size of his holding to an area below the limit of economic holding; Provided that such a person may alienate his entire holding. (2) No person owning an economic holding shall be allowed to alienate by sale, mortgage, gift or otherwise any portion of his holding Provided that such a person may alienate his entire holding. (3) No person owning more than the area of a subsistence holding but less than economic holding shall be allowed to alienate by sale, mortgage, gift or otherwise any portion of his holding which may reduce the size of his holding to an area less than the area of subsistence holding; Provided that such a person may alienate his entire holding. (4) No person owning an area equal to or less than a subsistence holding shall be allowed to alienate by sale, mortgage, gift or otherwise any part of his holding; Provided that he may alienate his entire holding or in the case of a holding which is less than a subsistence holding sell any part of his holding to other owners of the same village, deh or Mauza. (5) Any alienation made in contravention of the provisions of this paragraph shall be void. (6) Nothing in this paragraph shall apply to land, whether cultivable or other, which is bona fide required for the purpose of building thereon, and any tenant in possession of such land who refuses to quit after notice may be evicted under the orders of the Deputy Commis sioner." A close study of Thakur Madho Singh and another v. Lt. James R. R. Skinner and another, would show that while examining the scope and object of section 14 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, the learned Judges of the Full Bench observed that "section 14 merely prohibits a person other than a member of an agricultural tribe in the same group of agricultural tribes as the vendor to enjoy a right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land sold by a member of an agricultural tribe. In other words, this provision is merely intended to safeguard that no non-agriculturist can by means of pre-emption acquire any land which he could not do under the provisions of the Land Alienation Act. If section 14 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act is held to have been so worded as to exclude a non-agriculturist from acquiring land which he could not get under the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, it does not mean that the Punjab Alienation of Land Act has been held to override the provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The decision proceeded on the interpretation of section 14 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act and is not an authority for the proposition propounded by learned counsel for the appellant. The right oft pre-emption is a right of substitution and on its plain language the provisions; of para. 25(4) of the Martial Law Regulation No. 64 are not attracted as they vendee judgment-debtor does not alienate by sale, mortgage, gift or otherwise; any part of his holding.

5. For the reasons above, I hold in agreement with the learned District Judge that the appellant has no case. The Appeal fails and is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. K. B. A. Appeal dismissed.