' By a registered deed, dated 17-7-1968, the respondents purchased some agricultural land measuring 11 Kanals in village Hamza Ghaus of Tehsil and District Sialkot. On 21-1-1969 the petitioner instituted the present suit for pre-emption. He founded his superior claim on the assertion that he was an owner of the estate. The suit was resisted by the respondents who disputed the preferential right asserted by the petitioner on the ground that they too were owners of the estate by virtue of their ownership of Khasra No,254.
2. The trial Court upheld the claim of the petitioner that he had a preferential right to purchase the land. It accepted the assertion of the respondents that they were owners of Khasra No,254 but held that as the said Khasra was not agricultural land its owners could not be treated as owners of the estate.
3. From the decision of the trial Court the respondents went in appeal before the Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge reversed the finding of the trial Court, holding that the respondents too were owners of the estate. Accordingly, he accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of the petitioner. The petitioner has now come in revision before this Court.
4. Quite clearly, the claim of the respondents that they too are owners of the estate is based upon their ownership of Khasra No,254. This Khasra has an area of 7 Marlas and is assessed to land revenue. In the Khasra Girdawari (Exh.P.7) it was shown as Banjar Jadeed in Kharif 1965. Apparently, it must have been under cultivation within the two years prior to Kharif 1965.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though this Khasra had at one time been under cultivation and had also been assessed to land revenue it was essentially a building site and as such its owner could not be treated as owner of the estate. In support of this submission he pointed out that on a contiguous Khasra, bearing No, 1371, a house and a shop had already been constructed. He also referred to the admission of one of the respondents, namely. Nazir Ahmad, to the effect that he was a commission agent. He cited a number of decided cases to canvass the proposition that mere ownership of a plot of land assessed to land revenue would not make a person an owner of the estate. These cases were reported as Shah Muhammad v. Mst. Pairi AIR 1936 Lah. 202; Hardit Singh v. Mohindar Singh AIR 1937 Lah. 755; Phaggu Shah v. Khair Din AIR 1938 Lah. 353; Chint Ram v. Harbhagat Singh AIR 1940 Lah. 344 and Jawala Singh v. Tara Singh AIR 1920 Lah.
94.
6. On the evidence before me it is difficult to hold that Khasra No,254 even though covering a small area had lost its character as agricultural land. In fact one of the respondents, when he appeared in the witness-box in December, 1972, asserted that he had sown potatoes A therein. This assertion was not refuted by the petitioner. The Khasra Girdawari, as already mentioned, indicates that it was under cultivation within two years just prior to Kharif, 1965. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to areas which had lost their character as agricultural land and had either become or were destined to become building sites. Thus in Shah Muhammad v. Mst.
Pairi the land had not only been included within the limits of a town but had been built upon. In Phaggu Shah v. Khair Din the land in dispute was surrounded on three sides by houses and on the fourth by railway line; it too fell within the limits of a Municipal Committee. In Chint Ram v.
Harbhagat Singh the land had not been cultivated for over 26 years, was not assessed to land revenue and was next to the village Abadi. In Jawala Singh v. Tara Singh the plot in dispute was quite close to the village Abadi, was surrounded on all the sides by residential houses, and had never been cultivated upon. I should, therefore, think that none of these authorities is of any assistance to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. On the other hand the contention of the petitioner militates against the view expressed by a Division Bench in Boota Ram v. Bagga Singh AIR 1948 Lah.
103. In this case Abdur Rehman J observed:- " an area of land although lying allow and useless in any estate and although not occupied for purposes either agricultural or subservient to agriculture or for pasture does not cease to be a part of the estate within the meaning of the Punjab Pre-emption Act as long as it has not in fact ceased to be a part of the estate by being translated into other category permanently, that is, either by becoming village immovable property or urban immovable property".
I should therefore think that the contention of the petitioner that the respondents are not owners of the estate even though they possess a piece of land falling in the estate is without substance. As both the petitioner and the respondents possess equal status the learned Additional District Judge rightly dismissed the suit of the petitioner. This civil revision is without any merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.