' Both the appeals arise out of a common order passed by learned District Judge, Mirpur on November 29, 1988. These are, therefore, disposed of together.
2. Karam Dad pre-empted the sale of suit land measuring 2 kanals out of survey numbers 544 and 549, situate in village Bhalot, Tehsil Mirpur. It was averred that the pre-emptor was related to the vendor and a co-sharer in the suit land.
3. The suit land was alienated by Fateh Muhammad to Said Muhammad through a registered sale- deed executed on July 12, 1977 for a consideration of Rs,20,000. The vendee resisted the suit, among others, on the ground of his being a Mangla Dam affected and displaced person. The trial Court dismissed the suit on sustaining the aforesaid objection. However, on appeal, the learned District Judge disagreed with the finding of the trial Court and decreed the suit. In view of the learned District Judge, there was no evidence of the fact that the vendee was a displaced person as contemplated under the provisions of notification issued under section 6(2) of the Right of Prior Purchase Act (exempting from preemption, sales of land made in favour of Mangla Dam affected and displaced persons).
4. At the time of construction of Mangla Dam, keeping in view the hardship faced by Mangla Dam affected persons and to enable their rehabilitation without inconvenience, the Government in exercise of its powers under section 6(2) of the Right of Prior Purchase Act, issued a notification whereby the sales of agricultural lands and built up property made in favour of Mangla Dam affected and displaced persons, were exempted from operation of the law of pre-emption. In order to avail the aforesaid concession, it was enjoined that the vendee shall protect the sale of the property in his favour from the mischief of the provisions of pre-emption law, by production of a certificate issued by the Commissioner Mangla Dam certifying him to be a person affected and displaced by the construction of Mangla Dam.
5. The proposition of interpretation of the provisions of section 6(2) of the Right of Prior Purchase Act and the language of the notification issued under the aforesaid section, received attention of the Full Bench of this Court in Ghulam Rabbani's case, PLD 1971 AJ&K 68. Par majority, it was held that in order to avail the concession to protect the sale from the mischief of pre-emption, it was enjoined upon the vendee to prove that he was a Mangla Dam affected and displaced person. For, in view of this Court, a person who was not displaced but only affected on account of acquisition of part of his property, was not entitled to the aforesaid concession. Therefore, in order to defeat the pre-emption, suit, the onus was on the vendee to prove that he was not only an affected but a displaced person as well. The relevant observation is: "There is no doubt as to the authority that can certify that certain persons fall within the category of the specified class of the affected persons. Commissioner, Mangla Dam obviously has been authorized to issue a certificate but the question arises:
(a) What the certificate should contain?
(b) Whether the initial presumption of correctness of the contents of the certificate can be challenged by the aggrieved party?
' No particular form has been prescribed under the Notification. The material portion of the Notification reads: "to be so certified by the Commissioner, Mangla Dam."
' This shows that Commissioner, Mangla Dam had been authorised to issue a certificate declaring a person to be so affected.
' The word 'so' has many meanings. Webster's New International Dictionary defines the word 'so' when used as thus: 'used as a prefix to mean in the aforesaid manner or in accordance with the aforesaid; as, the so-formed crystal . Aforesaid manner in the Notification as discussed above is that the affected person must be a displaced person. Consequently the certificate must specify two things, (a) that the incumbent is a displaced person, (b) he is affected by the construction of Mangla Dam. If the certificate does not disclose that the person is a displaced person affected by the construction of Mangla Dam and only states that he is affected by the construction of Mangla Dam that would not be sufficient to non-suit a pre-emptor on the basis of this notification.
' A certificate issued by the Commissioner, Mangla Dam affairs raises an initial presumption of correctness of its contents but the accuracy of the recital can be questioned in a civil Court because such certificate is issued without hearing the other party. A party being affected by mischief of such an ex parte order has a right to challenge its accuracy and the civil Court, when such a situation arises, must provide an opportunity for rebuttal."
' An identical view was expressed in Sattar Muhammad's case, PLD 1982 AJ&K 31 and in Raj Wali's case, PLD 1981 AJ&K 79. In Raj Wali's case, an analytical examination of the scope of the term "affected and displaced" was construed in the following manner:-- "It is presumed that no word was used by the Legislature without purpose or meaning. Introduction of words "certified to be so displaced", has a definite meaning and a purpose behind it. In my view, the intention of the Legislature by introduction of aforesaid words, was to protect sale in favour of such persons who were Mangla Dam affected and displaced persons. This benefit was not available to the category of persons who though affected were not displaced. It was wrong to suggest that the words "affected by the construction of Mangla Dam" being operative, controlled the words 'so displaced" so much so that words "so displaced' lost their purpose and meaning. Both the phrases had independent meanings except that unless a person was affected by the construction of a Mangla Dam, he could not be deemed to be displaced in the eye of the Notification. The word "so" was used to show that displacement must occur on account of construction of Mangla Dam. Therefore, use of word "displaced" was dependent upon the term "affected by the construction of Mangla Dam"."
5. In present case, the claim of the vendee is that he was a Mangla Dam affected and displaced person. In support of his claim, he produced certificate Ex.DA issued by Commissioner, Mangla Dam Affairs on August 3, 1986. The language of the certificate fulfilled the requisite conditions of the Notification. This part of the proposition is undisputed.
6. However, the learned District Judge recorded his difference of opinion with the trial Court as the vendee, in his evidence as a witness, admitted that part of agricultural land belonging to him was left out from acquisition where a house was jointly built by him and his brothers, Factually, that is correct. But the fact of the matter is that the vendee, as stated by him and corroborated by the certificate Ex.DA, resided in old Mirpur city. His house was acquired by the Collector for the construction of Mangla Dam. By virtue of that acquisition, he was displaced from old Mirpur city and he settled in new Mirpur city on securing allotment of a plot. This state of facts has not been challenged by the pre-emptor. In my estimation the vendee has discharged the onus of proof to bring his case within the exception of concession made available to Mangla Dam affected and displaced persons by the Notification of the Government issued under section 6(2) of the Right of Prior Purchase Act.
7. The second appeal pertains to the price of the land. Mr. A.K. Ansari, learned counsel frankly accepted that the price of the land settled was not disputed. Therefore, the appeal was not pressed.
' On acceptance of the appeal of the vendee, the order of the learned District Judge is hereby set aside and the pre-emptor's suit stands dismissed for want of cause of action.