KHALILUR REHMAN KHAN, J.- This judgment will dispose of these nine petitiops (C.Rs.No.l078-D-87 to 1086-D-87) as question of fact and law involved in all these revision petitions is one and the same.
The peititioners except in revision petition No.l086-D-87 claim superior right of preemption on the ground of being owners of the contiguous land in the same estate. It was added that the petitioners' lands were situate on the same public path and were receiving water from the same khal. Imam Din petitioncr-preemptor in Civil Revision No.1086-D of 1987 further claimed that he was also related to the vendor. All these suits were dismissed by the learned Civil Judge in view of the law laid down in the case of Government of N.W.F.P. v. Mailk Said Kamal Shah (P.L.D. 1986 S.C. 360).
The appeals filed by the petitioners-preemptors also met the same fate and were dismissed by the learned District Judge, Okara, vide judgement and decree dated 12.4.1987. This led to the filing of the present revision petitions.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that as per observations made in para 103 of the judgement of Mr Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani right of preemption can successfully be claimed by an owner of the contiguous land as well as by the participator in. The amenities. This question need not be gone into as concededly talabs in the mode prescribed by Islamic Jurisprudence were neither made by the premptors at the relevant the nor any such averment as to the talabs has been made in the plaints. It is not denied that in these circumstances suits of the preemptors/petitioners cannot succeed.
3. For the reasons given above these revision petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.