Hussain Shah son of Muhammad Iqbal Shah was the owner of the land in dispute measuring 222 Kanals 9 Marlas situate in Border Area of village Badri Narianpura Tehsil Minchinabad District Bahawalnagar. He sold it in favour of Rana Muhammad Shabbir for Rs.50,000. Muhammad Ismail and Muhammad Khan respondents sought to pre-empt the sale of the land in dispute on payment of Rs.39,000. They have grounded their preferential right of pre-emption on the plea that they are owners in the village and Patidars. Rana Muhammad Shabbir died and his legal representatives were brought on the record, who are now the appellants in this appeal. The right of pre-emption of the plaintiffs was denied and it was reiterated on behalf of the vendor that the disputed property was not pre-emptible and erroneous valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee had been given in the plaint. As the suit was once remanded, and the final issues which were formulated by the learned trial Court are as follows:- (1)Whether the plaintiffs have a superior right of pre-emption? OPP.
(2)Whether Rs.50,000 were actually paid or fined in good faith`) OPD.
(3)If issue No.2 is not proved, what was the market value of the suit land? OPPs.
(4)Whether the suit is not maintainable for preliminary objection,No.1 in the written statement? OPD.
(4-A) Whether the plaint is properly stamped? If not, what is the proper valuation of the suit and its effect at present? OPPs.
2. The suit of the respondents was decreed by the learned Civil Judge Ist Class Minchinabad on 12- 3-1985 after having been remanded on 11-11-1983. The appeal of the appellants was unsuccessful on 17-10-1985 and both the judgments and decrees of the learned lower Courts have been challenged in this Regular Second Appeal. Issues Nos.4 and 4-A have been mooted before me by the learned counsel for the parties.
3. As regards issue No.4 Ch. Naseer Ahmad, the learned counsel for the appellants has referred to para.2 of Martial Law' Regulation No.9 which reads as under:- "2. The provisions of this Regulation, ~r any order made or direction issued thereunder, shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law, or in any order or decree of Court or other authority, or in any rule of custom for usage, or in any contract, instrument, deed or other document:"
From this para. It has been contended that under the scheme of allotment of the Border Area, it could only be sold to an Army personnel and not to a private person and in this manner, it was against the spirit of the scheme that a private person could exercise his right of pre-emption. It may be noted that the scheme containing terms and conditions has not been placed on the file. A photostat copy of it has been provided to me which has not been attested by any one. It cannot be relied upon. Otherwise it simply states that the allottee shall not alienate the land by sale, gift, exchange, or mortgage after acquiring proprietary rights except with the permission of the Deputy Commissioner concerned and in the case of Military Personnel, the Deputy Commissioner concerned shall obtain the approval of the G.H.Q. Rawalpindi. From this scheme, it was meant that it would be against the spirit of the scheme if a private person, or a non-any personnel was allowed to acquire such land.
4. Even according to the scheme, the land can be acquired by an Army personnel or by a private person subject to certain conditions. The evacuee land was not exempt from pre-emotion and after the confirmation of the allotment of g the land, it could be pre-emoted without any hinderance. Similar is the case of the State land. When proprietary rights are acquired in a State land, it can be sold to any one and the said sale is pre-emptible.
5. Section 8. Of the Punjab Pre-emotion Act, 1913 is reproduced below for the facility of reference:- "8. Provincial Government may exclude areas from pre-emotion.--(1) Except as may otherwise be declared in the case of any agricultural land in a notification by the Provincial Government, no right of pre-emotion shall exist within any cantonment.
(2) The Board of Revenue may declare by notification that in any local area or with respect to any land or property or class of land or property or with respect to any sale or class of sales no right of pre-emotion oar only such limited right as the Board of Revenue may specify shall exist."
Under section 8 ibid, the Board of Revenue may declare by a notification that such a land in a local area is excluded from being pre-emoted. Since no such notification exists, so the sale of the land in dispute has rightly been held as pre- C emptible. 1, therefore, confirm the findings of the learned lower Courts on issue No.4.
6. As regards issue No.4-A~, the court-fee was paid according to the order of the Court although late. Since the limitation is not impediment in the payment of the court-fee, it can be paid at any time and the objection of the appellants in this respect is not sustainable.1, therefore, see no merit in this Regular Second Appeal and dismiss the same with costs.