1982 PLP 1018 (SCMR)

M. BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J ‑Leave is sought against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 18‑4‑1982 passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 541 of 1976.

2. Land measuring 115 kanals and 11 marlas situate in village Karyala, Tehsil Chakwal was purchased by the petitioner from Fajar Ali and others by a Registered Sale Deed dated 1‑10‑1970 for a sum of Rs. 60,

000. Respondent Ghulam Akbar pre‑empted the sale on the basis of being owner in the Estate. It was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that respondent plaintiff was not an owner in the Estate and the only immovable property which he owned was 1 kanal and 18 marlas i.e. one‑half share of Khasra No. 1365 without any share of Shamilat, which he had purchased from Mst. Majeedan for residential purpose; and that the vendee‑petitioner was related to one of the vendors, namely Fajar Ali. The suit was tried by the Civil Judge, Chakwal who, vide his judgment dated 5-1‑1976 decreed the suit for possession through pre‑emption. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Jhelum who vide his' judgment dated 27‑4‑1976 accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of the respondent. Against this order, an appeal was preferred before the High Court and a learned Judge, vide the impugned order dated the 18th April, 1982 reversed the judgment of the learned District Judge and restored the order of the Civil Judge.

3. Main contention of the learned counsel before us is that the piece of land which was expressly purchased by the respondent for residential purpose cannot be converted to agricultural use and no claim for pre‑emption can be based on this ground; that the document of sale is void under the Land Reforms Regulation M. L. R. 115 and it cannot furnish valid basis for claim of pre‑emption and that the respondent cannot seek benefit from hi own illegal act.

4. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and fin that out of the total area, 1 kanal and 8 marlas is still used for agricultural purposes while on 10 marlas the respondent had constructed a house and thus the area left out is still used for agricultural purposes. Even the Revenue Record shows that seasonal crops are sown on the part of land which has not been built upon and there was no evidence before the Court that the land of the respondent is contiguous or not in the midst of village Abadi. The argument of the learned counsel regarding the validity of the sale is also without any legal force as the law of pre‑emption is the law of substitution and no other Court except the authority concerned under M. L. R. 115 can go into the question of the validity of the sale. The petition is without any merit and is, therefore, dismissed. Petition Dismissed