1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-These two appeals are directed against judgments dated 13-6-1977 of the Lahore High Court; whereby two second appeals, arising out of pre-emption matters, filed by the appellants (vendees/defendants), were dismissed, and the decrees passed in favour of the respondent (plaintiff/pre-emptor), were affirmed.
2. The appellants who are real brothers belonged to that area of Azad Kashmir which, it appears, came under acquisition for construction of the Mangla Dam. They purchased two parcels of agricultural land now in dispute in District Jhelum. The respondent instituted two separate suits for pre-emption on the basis of his superior right as compared to the appellants. They, in their reply, pleaded exemption granted to persons who were displaced an account of the construction of the Mangla Dam and in this behalf relied upon the Notification No. 3668-6513306-LROV, dated 15-9-1965 issued under section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The learned trial Court held that the father of the appellants owned land in the area concerned and he was the displaced person. The appellants not having been found as the displaced persons, their plea was repelled and decree was passed in favour of the respondent.
3. The first and second appeals filed before the District Court and the High Court having been dismissed, .They sought leave to appeal from this Court which was granted to examine the question as to what are the requirements for a vendee in a pre-emption suit to succeed on the basis of exemption granted by the aforenoted Notification.
4. 'The Notification, in question, reads as follows:- "No. 3668-65/3306-LROV.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub--section (2) of section 8 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, (Punjab Act I of 1913) the Board of Revenue West Pakistan is pleased to declare that for three years from the date of publication of this notification, no right of pre-emption shall exist with respect to the sale of agricultural land not exceeding 50 Acres in a canal irrigated area or 100 Acres in non-irrigated area and other immovable property not exceeding the market value of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) in favour of a person displaced from the Azad Kashmir who is affected by the construction of Mangla Dam and certified to be so affected by the Commissioner Mangla Dam Affairs, Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir."
5. It is obvious from the last part of the Notification that the person claiming exemption thereunder must satisfy at least four conditions:
(i) That the sale is in his favour;
(ii) That be is a displaced person from Azad Kashmir;
(iii) That he is affected by the construction of Mangla Dam; and lastly
(iv) That a certificate has been issued in his favour by the Commis--sioner, Mangla Dam Affairs, Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir certifying that he is so affected.
6. In this case two certificates were issued by the Commissioner Mangla Dam Affairs, but, they relate to Muhammad Hussain, the father of the appellants. Although, in one of them name of Saudagar appellant is mentioned but that also is in the context of the descriptive particulars of his father and it was not issued in favour of Saudagar. Thus, one condition under the Notification, namely,. That the certificate should have been issued in favour of the person claiming exemption is not satisfied. It has already been held by this Court in Manghta Khan and others v. Mst. Hamida Begum and others (PLD1981SC51that in a case like the present one where the certificate is in favour of the father of the vendee who seeks exemption, he would not be entitled to the exemption and that issuance of a certificate in his own favour is essential.
7. Learned counsel, however, contended that the Courts below have decided the case wrongly on the consideration that the appellants did not own land within the Mangla Dam area and the fact that their father owned land which was acquired, by itself, would not furnish a disqualifica--tion for the appellants to be treated as displaced persons. He argued that the acquisition of land belonging to a vendee for the Mangla Dam is not one of the qualifications for exemption as laid in the relevant Notification.
8. Although there seems to be some force in this contention of the learned counsel, but as already observed, it is not enough for claiming exemption under the Notification to show that the vendee is a displaced person from Azad Kashmir and is affected by the construction of Mangla Dam, it is also necessary to obtain a certificate to that effect from the designated Commissioner. As in this case necessary certificate was not issued in favour of the appellants, they could not have sought exemption under the Notification.
9. That being so, no case has been made .Out for interference by this Court. These appeals accordingly are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.