MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--- This appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench,Abbottabad, on 10-3-1981 in Civil Revision No. 50 of 1980.
2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that land under Khasra Nos. 28 and 462/27 situate in village Malukra was sold by Awal Khan, Sikandar Shah and Maqbool Shah to Sarwar Khan defendant- respondent by mutations .Nos. 477, 478 and 479 attested on 16-8-1977.
3. Hanif Gul, petitioner/appellant brought a suit for possession by pre-emption alleging that the ostensible price of Rs. 45,000 mentioned in the said mutations had not been paid; that the amount actually paid was Rs. 7,000 and that he being a co-sharer, participator in - immunities and owner of contiguous property, had a superior right of possession by pre-emp--petition which was not possessed by the vendee-respondent.
4. The suit was contested on various grounds giving rise to eight issues. The learned Civil Judge, who tried the suit, decided issues Nos. I to 5 against the defendant-respondent. On issue No. 6 it was observed that the field map reveals that the petitioner-appellant was contiguous owner of Khasra No. 29 which is contiguous to Khasras Nos. 28 and 462;27. He repelled the contention of the plaintiff-appellant that these two Khasras formed a compact block and observed that even though the two Khasras are contiguous but these are in different Kharas. Accordingly, a possessory decree of suit land in Khasra No. 28 through pre-emption was granted in favour of the plaintiff but suit for Khasra No. 462/27 was dismissed vide his order dated 25-7-1977.
5. Appeal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge was filed before the District Judge, Mansehra on the ground that both the Khasra Nos. 28 and 462/27 were contiguous to Khasra No. 29 owned by the appellant and are in a compact block and, therefore, suit with respect to Khasra No. 462/27 should have also been decreed. The learned District judge on reference to Aks Shajra Kishtwar Exh. 1/6 found that Khasras Nos. 28 and 462/27 were contiguous and constitute one block and- the plaintiff/appellant was owner of Khasras Nos. 29 & 32 contiguous to since Khasra No. 28, he was entitled to both the Khasras Numbers in the ,suit even though these were in separate Khatas. Consequently, he passed ---a decree in favour of the plaintiff-appellant in respect of Khasra No. 462/.27 as well, and thus the suit was decreed in its entirety.
6. The defendant-respondent then filed a Civil Revision before the Peshawar High Court and a learned Single Judge, vide impugned judgment, ;:reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge ;and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant in toto on the ground that 'there were two sales viz. One by Awal Khan in respect of Khasra No. 28 and the other by Sikandar Shah and Maqbool Shah in respect of Khasra No. 462/27 and as such there were two different causes of action and- tie plaintiff/appellant had to establish his superior right with respect to both the Khasra Numbers.
7. Leave was granted by this Court vide order dated 23-5-1981 to consider the question that the "sale of a parcel of land comprised in more than one Khasra does not -imply sale of as many properties as there are field numbers,, but of only the property represented by such parcel of land.
A person in order to pre-empt sale of a block of land comprising of Khasras numbers is not required to have his property contiguous to all Khasras numbers. If his property is contiguous to any part of the block or parcel of land notwithstanding it is comprised in a number ofKhasras, he becomes entitled to pre-empt the entire land."
8. Abdul Qayyum v. Muhammad Aslam (PLD 1979 SC`867), their Lordships following judgment in said Karim Shah v. Taj Muhammad (PLD 1974 SC 383) held that "In order that a person may pre-empt the sale of a block of land com--prised in different Khasra numbers, it is not necessary that he should have his property contiguous to all the Khasras numbers, and that if his property, is contiguous to any part of the block or parcel of land though comprised in a No of Khasras, he will have the right to pre-empt the entire land comprised in the Khasras Nos. Because sale of a parcel of land comprised in more than one Khasra No isnot sale of as many `properties' as there are field numbers but will be only one property represented by that parcel of land."
9. The learned counsel for the respondent however contented that Khata--- or Khewat--- is a --- holding--- and land situtate in two Khatas cannot be held to be one property.Reliance was placed on Muhammad Yusuf v. Sikandar (PLD 1970 Pesh. 160) wherein it was held: ---If a person has one holding in 0one village, he is owner of one property.If he has more than one Khata or holding in a village, he is the owner of more than property.On the contrary, if a holding comprises more than one Khasra No.He still remains the owner of one property, and does not become owner of as many properties as there are Khasra Nos.
10. We have examined the contentions of the learned counsel for both the parties and find that in the instant case the suit land is comprise in Khasras Nos. 28 and 462/27 and the two being contiguous to each other, constitute one compact block as is evident from Aks Shajra Kishtwar Exh.
P. W. 1/6. Hanif Gul, appellant being owner of Khasra Nos. 29 and 3 which are contiguous to Khasra No. 28, while Khasra No. 28 is contiguous to No. 462/27, form one compact block. Therefore, he has superior right of pre-emption extending to Khasra No. 462/27 as well irrespective of the fact whether it is comprised in the same Khata in which Khasra No. 28 is situate or is comprised in different Khatas. Thus, the contention of the A learned counsel for Hanif Gul carries force because he has a superior right of pre-emption on the basis of contiguity in respect of a compact block and it is immaterial whether Khasras Nos. Constituting the block are comprised in one or different Khasras.
11. In the light of foregoing discussions we accept the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court and restore the judgment of the learned District Judge, Mansehra, dated 6-4-1980. But in view of the peculiar facts of this case the parties are left to bear their own costs.