' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---Vide mutation No,7228 attested on 25-6-1996 the respondent purchased the suit land, mentioned in the plaint, for a consideration of Rs,4,00,000. On 30-9-1996 the petitioner filed a suit for possession by pre-emption. According to him, the land had, in fact, been sold for Rs,1,00,000. He claimed to be. a Shafi Sharik, Khalit and Jar. Performance of Talbs was pleaded: The respondent in its written statement took the plea that it is a charitable trust and the land had been purchased for the purposes of the said trust. It was that the price was fixed in good faith at Rs,4,00,000 and actually 'paid. The rest of the allegations were denied. Issues were framed.
Evidence of the parties was recorded. Vide judgment and decree dated 31-7-1998 the learned trial court dismissed the suit. I may note here that the learned trial court found that the petitioner had performed Talbs. However, it was found that he has no superior right of pre-emption. A further finding recorded was that the suit is barred under section 23 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 as it has been purchased by a charitable trust for the said purposes. A first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned ADJ, Chakwal, on 9-12-1999.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends with reference to document Exh.P.3 that his client was a co-sharer in the suit land. The other adverse findings is questioned with the plea that only such land stands exempted which already belongs to a Waqf or is being used for charitable purposes. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgments and decrees.
3. Copies of the records have been examined, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. None of the parties has produced the said mutation No,7228 attested on 25-6-1996.
However, the land had been described in the plaint and description has not been questioned.
According to this description, the land sold by Mst. Dil Bibi widow of Hakim Din to the respondent- trust is comprising Khasra No, 7193/6419. Its Khewat number is 1443 and the Kathuni number is 2055.
I have examined Ex.P.3 which is the copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1992-93. In the column of ownership Shamlat Patti Islampur is recorded to be the owner of 64328/66672 share while Central Government is recorded to be owner of the remaining 2344/66672 share. The petitioner Muhammad Farooq is recorded in the possession of column of Khasra No,7194/6420 measuring 35 Kanals 9 Marlas along with his mother, brother and sisters as an occupancy tenant.
On the other hand, in the possession column of Khasra No,7193/6419 i,e, the suit land Mst. Dil Bibi is recorded to be in possession to the extent of 9/16 share as an occupancy tenant along with others.
In the remarks column, reference has been made to Mutation No,7228 in favour of the respondent- trust in Khasra No,7193/6419. It is but apparent that the petitioner along with his family is an occupancy tenant in Khasra No,7194/6420 where-from no land has been sold while Mst. Dil Bibi has sold her 9/16 share in the occupancy tenancy vis-a-vis Khasra No,7193/6419. Thus, there is no question of the petitioner being a co- sharer with the said Mst. Dil Bibi in the occupancy rights of the suit land which has been sold by her to the respondent. It is, however, true that as per copy of Aks Shijra Kishtwar (Exh.P.10) both the Khasra numbers are adjacent. However, nothing turns on the same. The reason being that the right of a Shaft Jar is relatable to ownership of the immovable property whereas neither Mst. Dil Bibi vendor nor the petitioner are owners rather they are occupancy holders under the said recorded owne. I, therefore, do uphold the findings of the learned courts below on the question of superior rights of pre-emption.
4. Coming to the question of applicability of section 23 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, section 23(1) (a) lays down that no right of pre-emption shall exist in respect of sale of Waqf property or property used for charitable, religious or public purpose. There is no denial on record that the respondent is a trust or Waqf and purchased the property as such. The deed of trust has been produced as Ex. D.S. It is a registered document. The purposes of the trust are the setting up of a Hospital on modern lines and to serve the people of the locality and around village Hastal. Raja Nazar Hussain, Chairman of the said respondent-trust appeared as DW-1 to state that the land has been purchased for constructing a Hospital. Not a single question was put to him in cross-examination to challenge the said statement. The evidence of the P.Ws including Muhammad Farooq petitioner PW-1 is also silent in this regard. The learned courts below have, therefore, correctly concluded that the land had been purchased for the said charitable purpose and is the property of charitable trust. Upon a plain reading of the said provision, it does appear that the prohibition is regarding the sale of a Waqf property or property used for charitable purposes. The intention of the Legislature, however, clearly appears to save the property purchased for charitable user from the rigors of the exercise of right of pre-emption. In view of the said evidence on record, I do find that the bar contained in section 23 of the said Act of 1991 is applicable. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed but without any orders as to costs.