' SALIM KHAN; J.--- The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the plaint of Sikandar Shah whereby Sikandar Shah preempted 1 Kanal, 8 Marlas land in Khasra No,462 (the disputed land) sold vide Mutation No,2322 attested on 26-1-2002. It was mentioned in paragraph 2 of the plaint that on 28-1-2002, which was Monday, at about 1 p.m., Tahir Mansoor son of Ghulam Muhiyyud Din informed the plaintiff at his shop regarding the sale in question and the plaintiff declared his intention to pre-empt the suit property.
2. The evidence of the parties was recorded and, ultimately, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in his favour against the present petitioner on the payment of Rs,1,11,805.52 as the pre-emption amount. The appeal of the present petitioner was also dismissed. Hence the present civil revision along with C.M. No,907 of. 2006 for temporary injunction against the plaintiff-respondent for restraining him from transferring etc. The suit property.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the plaintiff had superior right of pre- emption while the defendant did not have such a right. He referred to the statement of Abdur Razaq Patwari Halqa wherein he stated that the plaintiff was co-sharer in the suit property while the defendant did not have such a right and the defendant was shown as co-sharer in the suit property as a result of the impugned mutation.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the sale consideration as market value of the suit property was not properly proved and the application of the petitioner for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the suit property was not decided. The statement of Patwari Halqa regarding the market value on the basis of average of sale consideration is a sufficient evidence, according to which the market value of the suit property is Rs,1,11,805.52. The defendant did not produce any other reliable evidence regarding any other amount. The statement of his witness is not supported by any document like receipt etc. Due to failure of the defendant to pave any other amount as sale consideration. The above mentioned amount was duly and concurrently accepted as the market value of the suit property. The defendant did not try to prove the payment of Rs,1,40,000 as mentioned in the impugned mutation, rather tried to show an exaggerated amount as the sale consideration of the suit property, and contended that less amount was mentioned in the mutation in order to save the taxes.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the suit property was purchased by the defendant for the construction of mosque, but that contention has not been proved by any cogent evidence. The defendant had a chance to mention in the mutation itself that the suit property was purchased for Waqf in the name of mosque but that has not been done. The learned two Courts have concurrently refused to accept such a contention of the present petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to section 13 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 and submitted that the defendant had refused the receipt of the notice and it was the duty of the plaintiff to prove that notice was sent to the defendant and was received by him. He contended that the version regarding Talb-iMuwathibat was not shown in the notice and no Majlis was mentioned therein. While reading subsection (3) of section 13 mentioned above, he was told that it is not only Majlis but "Mulaqaat" also which can be the occasion of declaration of intention to pre-empt and that it was clearly mentioned by the plaintiff in para.2 of the plaint that re was informed by a certain person at a certain place on a certain day and at a certain time. This meeting could not be rebutted by the defendant, In fact the date, time and name of the informer was mentioned in the notice as well, although it was not necessary to give other details of Talb-i- Muwathibat, except its declaration on a certain day or date, from which the period upto sending of notice could be counted. The word "yesterday" for declaration of Talb-i-Muwathibat was enough.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the original notice was not produced although it was not received by the defendant/petitioner. The plaintiff had produced Wali Muhammad Post Master who categorically stated that the issue of registered letter in the name of Syed Zahid Bukhari was mentioned in the general book produced by him in Court, the copy of which was produced as Exh.P.W.2/1. It clearly proved that the notice in question was sent by the counsel for the plaintiff who was duly authorised agent of the plaintiff. It was never necessary that the plaintiff must personally send the notice.
8. In the light of the above, I do not find any merits in the present IE civil revision which is dismissed along with C.M. No,907 of 2006.