1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--Salamatullah, who was an allottee of the land in dispute, sold his rights therein to the petitioner herein, vide registered deed dated 5-3-1962. Ranjha Khan, respondent No,1 herein, filed a suit for preemption against the petitioner claiming superior right of pre-emption on the ground of being a co-sharer in the Khata. The suit was dismissed by the learned Administrative Civil Judge vide his judgment dated 16-6-1964, on the ground that the nature of the right and interest conferred under the enactment upon the transferee of the land was not such as to entitle him to ownership and, therefore, the sale was not pre-emptible.
2. ' An appeal was taken to the District Court against the above judgment, but was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judgc, Muzaffargarh, on 4th September, 1964.
3. ' A second appeal was accordingly filed in the Lahore High Court, and Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, Chief Justice (as he then was) observed that the sale was made on 5th March, and the property had by that date ceased to be an evacuee property, having been acquired under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and that this Court in the case of Sultan Muhammad (PLD 1973 SC 347) had held that such sales were pre-emptible. Following the said pronouncement the appeal was accepted by his judgment dated 5-6-1974 and the judgments and decrees of the learned Administrative Civil Judge and the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh, were set aside. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the last mentioned judgment.
4. The main contention urged before us, in support of this petition for leave, is that the judgment of this Court in Sultan Muhammad v. Muhammad Siddiquc (PLD 1973 SC 347) requires reconsideration. However, no good reason has been advanced before us as to why the view expressed by this Court in a considered judgment should he reconsidered.
5. ' An attempt was then made to show that the present case was not governed by the aforesaid judgment, on the ground that the vendee-respondent was not a confirmed allottee and hence the transaction of sale entered into by him was not subject to the incident of pre-emption.
6. ' We do not agree. Respondent No,2, Salamatullah was, according to his own showing, a quasi- permanent allottee and sales by such allottecs are subject to the incident of pre-emption, as is evident from the observation made by this Court at page 361 of the report.
7. ' This petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim order passed on 27-8-1974 stands vacated.