' Z. Mehfooz Khan Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner is heard. No one appeared on behalf of the L. Rs, of the respondent as they have already been proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 26-5-1979.
Jehandad Khan (petitioner) instituted Suit No, 81/1 of 1973 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Hazara at Abbottabad against Channan Khan the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents seeking possession by pre-emption of 148/222 share with share of Shamilat of land bearing Khasra No, 104 measuring 3 kanals 17 marlas situated in the area of Sultan Pur on payment of Rs, 200 or the price fixed by the Court.
3. On the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed several issues but in this revision petition we are concerned with issues Nos. 2 and 3 which are to the effect "(2) Whether the transaction is exempted from the operation of pre-emption?
(3) Whether the defendant is displaced person on account of his land having been acquired for Ordnance Factory, Havelian and as such exempted from pre-emption?"
After recording the evidence of the parties the learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the sale in question was exempt from pre-emption. Reliance was placed on a certificate (Exh. D. W. 3/1) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazara with reference to the Notification No, 16229/Rev./B/N/ 101, dated 5-10-1973 issued under section 7 of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950 (Act No, XIV of 1950). It may be mentioned that in the certificate the word 'affected land-owner' and not displaced person' is mentioned. But in view of the learned trial Court the use of the word 'affected land-owner' instead of 'displaced person' was immeterial because the property of the defendant-respondent having been acquired for Pakistan Ordnance Factory, Havelian he w is an affected person and thus the property purchased by him would not be subject to right of pre-emption. Jehandad (petitioner) feeling aggrieved filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Hazara at Abbottabad on 4-3-1976 confirming the finding of the learned trial Court that the, sale in question was exempt from the right of pre-emption.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the inter-petition, put on the construction of Notification No, 16229/Rev./B/N/101, dated 4-10-1973 issued by the Board of Revenue, by both the learned Courts below was erroneous as the language used therein has been unduly stretched in favour of the respondent. The Notification (Exh. D. W. 1/1) dated 5-10-1973 reads as follows :---- "In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) of section 7 of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1950 (N.-W. F. P.) Act No, XIV of 1950, the Board of Revenue is pleased to declare that for a period of three years from the date of publication of the notification on right of pre-emption shall exist with respect to sale of agricultural land, as allowed under paragraph 24 of the Land. It is evident that the exemption is available under the notification to persons displaced from Havelian, District Hazara is consequence of the construction publication of this notification, but shall not affect the decrees This notification shall also apply to all suits pending on' the date of btained by pre-emption prior to such date."
' Havelian, District Hazara in consequence of the construction of Pakistan Ordnance Factory, Havelian and certified to be so displaced by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazara.
' Reforms Regulation, 1972 only in favour of persons displaced from of Pakistan Ordnance Factory. It is also required that the Deputy Commissioner, Hazara is to certify that the person concerned was a displaced person.
5. In the application submitted by Channan Khan predecessor-in-interest of the respondents to the Deputy Commissioner on 12-12-1973 (Exh. D W. 3/1) for obtaining the certificate, he described himself as a 'displaced person' because his land in village Sultanpur has been acquired by the Government for the construction of the Ordnance Factory, Havelian. However, in the certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazara, the respondent was not mentioned as a 'displaced person' but has been described as an 'affected land-owner' of the Pakistan Ordnance Factory, Havelian as his land was acquired for defence purposes. Channan Khan in his statement in the trial Court (D. W. 3) stated that his land situated in Sultanpur has been acquired for Pakistan Ordnance Factory Havelian. That he was a resident of Sultanpur and even now he was residing there. He stated that for the last 10 years he had constructed a house in Sultanpur wherein he is residing and apart from the land acquired by the Government, he was still in possession of 3/4 kanals of land which was culturable and of good quality.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the vendee-respondent may be an affected person because of the construction of Pakistan Ordnance Factory, Havelian but certainly he cannot be described as a 'displaced person' because he continued to reside and own same land in his village Sultanpur even after the acquisition of his land for the said purpose.
7. From the language used in the notification it appears that the object behind using the word displaced person" in the notification was to benefit only those persons who were uprooted from their villages as a result of th acquisition of their lands. Therefore, the sale in favour of a displaced persona! Only was exempted from pre-emption and the benefit was not extended to the affected land-owners. Admittedly Channan Khan defendant-vendee was no a 'displaced person' from his village Sultanpur where he continued to reside and also owned some land even after the acquisition for the purpose of the Ordnance Factory.
8. Although he may be described as an affected person because of the acquisition of his land but this fact alone would not entitle him to claim benefit under the notification. The word 'displaced' is defined in Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary as "to put out of place; to disarrange ; to remove from a state, office or dignity; to substitute something for" and the word 'displaced person' is defined as "one removed from his country as a prisoner or as slave labour a refugee or stateless person". In view of the aforesaid definition of the word 'displaced' and 'displaced person' it/becomes abundantly clear that the object underlying the notification was to grant exemption only to those persons who were displaced from their villages as a result of the construction of the Pakistan Ordnance Factory. Therefore, the persons who continued to reside in their villages even after the acquisition of their lands, though may be described as 'affected land-owners' would not fall within the scope of the notification. Perhaps this was the reason that in the certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Channan Khan respondent was described as an 'affected land-owner' and not as a 'displaced person'.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the findings of the Courts below holding the sale in question to be exempt from the right of pre-emption are not maintainable. Therefore, by accepting the revision the judgment and decrees of both the Courts are set aside. The superior right of pre-emption of the plaintiff-petitioner as against defendant-vendee having. Been established in the trial Court, the decree prayed for is granted in his favour on payment of Rs, 7,458.40 (as determined by the learned trial Court). The balance of the pre-emption money is to be deposited with a month failing which the plaintiff-petitioner's suit shall stand dismissed. No order as to cost