1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-This is defendants' petition for leave to appeal wherin a decree for per-emption in favour of the respondent on ground of tenancy, has been challenged. The contention of the learned counsel is that the sale in question was of occupancy rights which though being treated as land under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, could not be treated as land under para.25 of the relevant Land Reforms Regulation; whereunder the respondent had filed a suit on ground of tenancy. The argument further proceeds that while in the Punjab Pre-emption Act read with the Punjab Tenancy Act, the sale of occupancy rights is treated as sale of land for purposes of law of pre-emption, the definition of land in the Land Reforms Regulation was not so wide.
2. ' The perusal of the definition of land in the Land Reforms Regulation shows that it is prefixed by the condition that it will have to be read in the context of the provision in which it occurs--the provision namely para. 25 speaks about the "pre-emption". The procedure and other requirements of law of pre-emption are not contained in the said regulation/paragr2ph. The provision relating to preemption is hardly in one sentence. The remaining necessary legal requirement as held by this Court in the case of 'Muhammad Khan v. Abdul Khaliq Khan' PLD 1981 SC 153 was to be discovered from the then existing law of pre-emption in Punjab. It was held therein that the provisions of paragraph 25(3-D) had become part of section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. That being so, the said section had visualised a pre-emption suit with regard to sale of occupancy rights. This was in addition to the definition of land which included occupancy rights. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel not being tenable, leave to appeal is refused.