AJK Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993
1. Question of waiver
2. Retrospective or prospective effect
3. Status of Suit Land
4. Date of Registration
5. Right of Prior Purchase on Basis of Contiguity
1. Question of waiver–Oral evidence in addition to agreement brought on record shows that during pendency of proceeding before trial court, appellant on an application moved by defendant for Special Oath has admitted that he received Rs. 10,000 for not filing pre-emption suit, which constitutes a stronger waiver against plaintiff–Both courts below decided issue against plaintiff after due appreciation of facts, order therefore does not warrant any interference–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1998 (AJK) 5
2. Retrospective or prospective effect–That if contrary intention does not appear in relevant statute, suits which were pending at time of amendment of section 14 of Prior Purchase Act would be governed by unamended provisions which were in force at time of institution of suit and not in view of amended law–Refused–Leave to appeal. PLJ 1996 SC (AJK) 237
3. Status of Suit Land — Contention that suit land was not a definite share of estate and was not separately assessed to land revenue, S. 7(v)(d) of Court Fees Act, 1870 barred jurisdiction of Trial Court and that jurisdictional value should have been determined according to market value of land in dispute whereon a house stood constructed–Entries in Jamabandi had shown that land in dispute was assessed to land revenue and was out of a definite share of vendor–Provisions of S. 7(v)(d) of Court Fees Act, 1870 were not applicable in case and as plaintiff/pre-emptor did not file suit for possession of house constructed on suit land, jurisdictional value would not be determined on basis of market value of property, but same would be determined on basis of revenue assessed on suit land as provided under S. 7(vi)(e) of Court Fees Act, 1870–Contention of vendee with regard to non-maintainability of suit was repelled. PLJ 1999 SC (AJK) 349 Mahal/Estate–Connotation–Generally, word ‘Mahal” has same meaning as “estate” but it is not always to be so–Question that two pieces of land are situated in same “estate” or “Mahal” or not is to be determined in view of fact as to whether such piece of land were treated as one entity for assessing land revenue–It is necessary for plaintiff to prove that land owned by him and suit land were assessed to land revenue treating same as one entity or unit, i.e. “mauza”, “village”, “estate” or “mahal”. PLJ 1999 SC (AJ & K) 295
4. Date of Registration “- Suit for pre-emption decreed by trial Court, set aside in appeal and reversed by High Court–Appeal against–Whether sale-deed executed on 12.8.1991 and registered on 19.8.1991 will be operative from date of execution or from date of registration–Question of–Learned counsel for appellant has referred to case reported as Naseer Ahmad v. Asghar Ali (1992 SCMR 2300), wherein it has been held that where document compulsorily registerable is registered subsequent to date of its execution, it would operate when same was executed and not from date when same was registered–Observations made by Supreme Court of Pakistan in authority cited by learned counsel for appellant, it is evident that there is hardly any doubt that after registration, document would ‘operate from date of its execution–Thus, in instant case, sale-deed registered on 19.8.1991 would be effective from 12.8.1991–Held: Sale-deed obtained by plaintiff-respondent, on 15.8.1991, having not been in existence on 12.8.1991 would not give him any right of prior purchase–Suit entailed dismissed as was done by District Judge–Appeal accepted. PLJ 1999 SC (AJK) 230
5. Right of Prior Purchase on Basis of Contiguity-=Mere fact that property owned by plaintiff is adjacent to property sold, is not sufficient to hold that said lands are situated in same “mahal”–It is necessary for plaintiff to prove that land owned by him and suit land were assessed to land revenue treating same as one entity or unit, i.e. “nzauza”, “village”, “estate” or “mahal”–Where this was not case of plaintiff nor there was any evidence in that regard decree granted by High Court set aside. PLJ 1999 SC (AJ & K) 295