' ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.-As the two petitions, mentioned hereinabove arise out of a common judgment of Peshawar High Court, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order. These petitions for special leave to appeal have been brought to challenge the judgment dated 18-12- 1982 whereby the learned Acting Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar refused to interfere with the decree passed by the learned District Judge, Kohat and dismissed the revision applications filed by the petitioners.
2. The facts are that the petitioners brought a pre-emption suit challenging the sale transaction of the disputed land in favour of Sher Ilyas, respondent on the ground that they were tenants of the said land and, therefore, they had a preferential right to purchase the land under MLR-115. The respondent denied their claim and contended that he was entitled to the right of preemption on the basis of his being co-sharer in the land as well as being an owner of contiguous property. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Kohat decreed the suit on the payment of Rs, 900 vide his judgment dated 16-3-1976, on the ground that they were tenants-at-will continoualy since 1970. This decree, however, was set aside, on appeal by the respondent, by the learned District Judge, Kohat who dismissed the suit of the petitioners by his judgment dated 15-9-1976 on the view taken by him that the documentary evidence consisting of Fard of Jamabandi 1972-73 the suit land was shown in possession of the owners and that in the settlement Jamabandi there is no mention about the alleged tenancy of the petitioner over the land in dispute. The learned District Judge did not accept the entries in the Khasra Girdawari relied upon by the petitioners since presumption of truth attaches to the revenue record prepared during the settlement operations. He further referred to the proceedings taken by the Tebsildar, Kohat for the correction of the entries made in the Khasra Girdawari which revealed these entries in the names of the petitioners were found to be wrong and were, therefore, corrected vide Exh. D/W 1/2, which fact was totally ignored by the trial Court.
3. Being aggrieved with the decision of the learned District Judge, the petitioners, filed two separate Civil Revisions which Were dismissed by the learned Acting Chief Justice by the impugned judgment. In support of these petitions the learned counsel reiterated his contention that the petitioners had established by their evidence that they were tenants in possession of the land at the relevant time and were, therefore, entitled to assert their superior right of pre-emption under MLR-115. However, since this is a question of fact and the learned counsel concedes that no presumption of corrections attached to the entries made in the Khasra Girdawari, we are unable to accept his contention since the finding of the Courts of fact below is based on the superior official record contained in the Jamabandi record which does not show them as tenants. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent had purchased 42/360 shares equivalent to 2 Kanals 1 Marla through Mutation No, 13 attested on 26-11-1972 out of Khasra No, 61 measuring 17 Kanals 14 Marlas situated in Mahal Chaghtoo, Tehsil and District Kohat. On the back of the mutation according to him, the land purchased by the respondent was separated by metes and bounds and a Tatima was prepared which was given Khasra No, 61/1. On the basis of these facts he contended that the respondent had thereby ceased to be a co-sharer in the remaining area of the Khasra number and could not, therefore, claim right of pre-emption. This plea was, however, not raised before any of the Courts below as there is no mention thereof in the judgments placed on record. In any case no such contention having been raised before the High Court, we are inclined to consider the same at this stage.
4. For the foregoing reasons we find no force in these petitions which are accordingly dismissed.