MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-Leave is sought against the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court dated 17-4-1982 in R. S. A. No. 32 of 1978.
2. Petitioners purchased 76 kanals out of 106 kanals and 9 marlas situate in Khasra No. 1180/723/724 in village Jhaungara Tehsil and District Mardan by registered deed dated 28-1-1974 and Mutation No. 1851 was attested on 8-5-1974. Haji Feroze and Haji Jamroze, respondents 1 and 2 brought a Civil Suit No. 12/1 in the Court of Civil Judge, Mardan seeking possession by pre-emption of the suit land.
Another suit was filed by Salahuddin, respon--dent No. 3 (Suit No. 123/1) to pre-empt the same land. The two suits were consolidated. The two rival pre-emptors claimed superior rights qua the vendees, firstly, on the ground of being participators in immunities and secondly, by being owners of the contiguous property. The Court trying the matter, framed the following issues "(1) Which of the rival pre-emptor has got a superiority right of pre-emption.
(2) Whether a sum of Rs. 71,250 was fixedin good faith or actually paid.
(3) What is the market value of the suit land.
(4) Whether the defendant vendees have made improvements in the suit land, if so, to what extent and to what effect.
(5) Whether the defendant vendees have paid Rs. 5,000 as expense:: of Registration, if so, are they entitled to compensation in case or decree.
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to bring the present case.
3. The trial Judge held under issue No. 1 that the plaintiffs/pre-emptors were the owners of the contiguous land while the defendants lacked this qualification, and, therefore, decreed the suit in equal share in favour of the two pre-emptors.
4. The petitioners filed appeal against the order of the learned trial Judge before the District Judge who, vide his judgment dated 14-6-1978 dismissed the appeal. Petitioners then filed R. S. A. In the Peshawar High Court which was also dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 17-4-1982:
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before us that the plaintiffs (respondents) have failed to establish the contiguity of their property with the suit land ; that the suit land in Khasra number out of which a part was sold and the rest of the land remained with the vendor, Therefore, with the division of Khasra number the contiguity, which if at all existed before the sale, ceased. To continue and lastly ; that the Courts below have misread the evidence both oral and documentary and thus fell into serious error.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the points raised by the learned counsel but we find no substance in them. The vendor sold 76 kanals out of 106 kanals and 9 marlas of land and as there is no evidence that the Tatimma was drawn at the time when the sale mutation was recorded or thereafter when it was attested on 8-5-1974, so it can be safely assumed that the Tatimma was drawn during the pendency of the suit. As regards the next question, the water channel, according to the petitioners, existed between the suit land and the land of the respondents but this water channel had not been shown in the official revenue record and the witness from the Irrigation Department also could not make a forthright statement that the water channel is Government property. This been the position, the water channel, even if it be there, does not affect the respondent's case. The fact remains that the suit land is not only contiguous to Khasra Nos. 721/722 but also to Khasra No. 762 which is owned by the pre-emptors, therefore, even if the pre-emptors-respondents are not owners of the water channel they are still owners of contiguous land because Khasra No. 762, and land need not have to be contiguous to each Khasra of the suit land.
7. In Abdul Qayum v. Muhammad Aslam (PLD 1979 SC 867), the learned Judges 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 comprised in different Khasra numbers, it is not necessary that h should have his property contiguous to all the Khasra numbers, an that if his property is contiguous to any part of the block or parcel of land though comprised in a number of Khasras, be will have the right to pre-empt the entire land comprised in the Khasra numbers because sale of a parcel of land comprised in more than one Khasra number is not sale of as many `properties' as there are field numbers but will be only one property represented by that parcel of land."
Similarly in Muhammad Yusuf v. Sikandar (PLD 1970 Posh. 160), it was held :- "If a person has one holding in one 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 one property. On the contrary, if a holding comprises more than one Khasra number, he still remains the owner of one property and does not become owner of as many properties as there are khasra numbers."
8. We find the petition without any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.