SH. HAKIM ALI, J.--- A decree for possession on the basis of superior right of pre-emption, passed in favour of writ petitioner, on 5-1-2004 against one Sheikh Khalid Hameed, with regard to residential Plot No.6, situated in Mauza Chah Peepal Wala, extended block of Model Town-A, Bahawalpur, was tried to be incorporated into the Revenue Record by filing an application to Tehsildar/Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Bahawalpur, but upon his refusal on 27-9-2004, the instant writ petition has been filed in this Court.
2. Facts as narrated by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and coming out from the record, are that Sheikh Khalid Hameed had purchased a residential plot bearing No.6, measuring 5850 sq.
Feet, situated in Mauza Chah Peepal Wala (Extended block of Model Town-A, Bahawalpur) through registered sale-deed dated 13-12-1995, allegedly for Rs.1,08,000 only. The suit was filed within the prescribed period in the year 1996. After contesting the suit for a few years, both the parties i.e. The pre-emptor and the vendee entered into compromise and the vendee after accepting the sale amount, got the decree passed in favour of Hafiz Muhammad Ramzan, plaintiff from the Court of learned Civil Judge, Bahawalpur on 5-1-2004 in Civil Suit No.116 of 2003, instituted in the year 1996.
To get the aforementioned decree implemented into Revenue Record, Hafiz Muhammad Ramzan moved an application to Tehsildar/Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Bahawalpur for the entering and sanctioning of a mutation into Revenue Record, on the basis of the above noted judgment and decree, dated 5-1-2004, passed in his favour. After reports were made by the subordinate revenue officials of the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Tehsil Bahawalpur, he refused to implement the decree on 27-9-2004, on the pretext that the decree-holder must get the decree registered from the Sub-Registrar prior to its implementation in the Revenue Record. Aggrieved from this order dated 27-9-2004, the instant writ petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submits that the decree in question was not liable to be registered with the Sub-Registrar because it had not created any fresh rights in favour of decree-holder. It was a decree of substitution and was not required to be registered even on the basis of section 17 of the Registration Act. It has also been submitted by him that the Revenue Officer was not entitled to refuse its implementation.
4. On the other hand, learned A.A.-G. Has submitted that the land involved in the decree was an urban plot. Although it was a share of a Khata yet it had transferred right in the land/plot in question in favour of the writ petitioner. Therefore, its registration was necessary before its incorporation into the Revenue Record.
5. Both the learned counsel have been heard, law scanned and record perused. Before entering into discussion as to whether the decree in question can be refused to be implemented by the Revenue Officer concerned on the ground, which has been narrated and stated in the impugned order, dated 27-9-2004 by the D.D.O.(R), Tehsil Bahawalpur, it would be necessary to examine the nature of the decree. It is settled law that right of pre-emption is a right of substitution. In the sale transaction, the vendee is substituted by the entry of pre-emptor when a decree is passed. In other words, the decree is not creating any fresh transaction of sale or giving birth to new alienation. The transfer which was evidenced through the impugned sale in the pre-emption suit remains the same. It is only the person who is substituted. Vendee is replaced by the pre-emptor. Therefore, it is not a transfer anew. Order XX, rule 14 of the C.P.C. Has expressly provided that the title is deemed to accrue from the date of payment of the purchase money by the pre-emptor and the title shall be deemed to have accrued to the pre-emptor, from the date of such deposit. To be more appropriate on this point, the intent of the provision is that with the payment of sale consideration by the pre-emptor, he becomes owner of the property in dispute and no other document or deed is required for transfer of rights in the property. The deposit of the amount as required by the decree automatically transfers the title in favour of the pre-emptor from the vendee/defendant. In Shahra and others v. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab and others 2004 SCM R 117. Honourable Supreme Court had held that "sanction of mutation in pursuance of decree of a Civil Court was merely formality and was not independent act, and according to law did not by itself independently, had the effect of creating any right". It was also held that with the deposit of pre- emption money, the pre-emptor/decree-holder was vested with full ownership rights of the land, the subject-matter of the pre-emption decree. In AIR 1929 All. 237 in a Division Bench judgment, pronounced in case of Ram Lal v. Harpal and another, it was settled that under Order XX, rule 14(b) of the C.P.C., with the deposit of pre-emption money, the title of the property accrues to the pre- emptor and a registered document was not necessary for passing of title to the pre-emptor. This view was also repeated in Bajirao Samaji Salewar v. Abdul Ghaffar son of Sheikh Rahman AIR 1949 Nag. 338.
6. According to section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, the decree has been exempted from registration under clause 6 of subsection (2) of section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, therefore, the pre-emption decree does not require to be registered with the Sub-Registrar of the area concerned. Accordingly, the writ petition is accepted and the impugned order, dated 27-9-2004 is declared illegal and unlawful. Consequently, the respondents are directed to implement the decree in question into the Revenue Record, maintained by the Revenue Department within shortest possible time, preferably within two months. No order as to costs.