' RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This is a direct appeal by Aziz Hussain and others, appellants, against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 23-3-1989 accepting the second appeal filed by Rashid Ahmad and others, respondents, and restoring the decree of the trial Court, dated 4-6-1984.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the disputed land measuring 688 'Canals situate in Chak No,6/11-L, Tehsil and District Sahiwal, was sold by Lt. Zahid Jan for a sum of Rs,2,40,800 to Aziz Hussain, Raza All and Barkat Ali, present appellants, vide Mutation No,378 sanctioned on 12-12-1974.
Rashid Ahmad and others, present respondents, pre-empted the sale on the ground of being owners in the estate. The suit was resisted by the appellants, who filed their written statement.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the suit is not triable by this Court?
(2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
(3) Whether the suit has been incorrectly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? If so, what is the correct valuation for both the purposes and proper court-fee?
(4) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for the reason given in preliminary objection No,5?
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by act and conduct to bring the suit?
(6) What is the effect of not filing copy of the settlement record relating to the land in dispute with the plaint?
(7) Whether the plaintiffs have superior right of pre-emption?
(8) Whether the ostensible sale price of Rs,2,40,800 was fixed in good faith or paid?
(9) If not, what was the market value of the land in dispute at the time of its sale?
(9-A) Whether the sale in dispute is exempt from pre-emption?
(9-B) Whether the defendants have effected improvements on the suit land? If so, when, of what value and with what effect?
(10) Relief.
' After allowing the parties to produce oral as well as documentary evidence and perusing the same, the trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 6-4-1984, subject to payment of Rs,2,40,800 as price and Rs,1,00,000 for improvements.
4. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, two appeals, one by the appellants/vendees and the other by the present respondents/preemptors were filed in the Court of the District Judge, Sahiwal. In the appellants' appeal, they challenged the findings of the trial Court on issues Nos. 2 to 8, while in the other appeal, the respondents challenged the findings of the Court on issue No,9-B.
The appeal filed by the appellants was allowed by the learned District Judge vide judgment and decree, dated 17-11-1984. The other appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed.
5. The respondents thereafter filed a second appeal in the Lahore High Court, which came up for final disposal before a learned Single Judge of the Multan Bench, who, vide his judgment and decree, dated 22-3-1989, accepted the appeal of the respondents and decreed their suit. The learned Single Judge held that at least where two lots were concerned, which were situate in squares 100 and 110 in respect of which full price had been paid by the predecessors-ininterest of Lt:.Zahid Jan, vendor, they were pre-emptible as they had become' full owners and proprietary rights in the said lands had passed to them, notwithstanding that sale-deeds had not been executed in their favour. In the said connection the learned counsel relied upon Ilam Din v.
Muhammad Din PLD 1964 SC 842 and Ali Muhammad v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner 1984 SCMR 94. With regard to the remaining land measuring 490 Kanals and 8 Mamas, the learned Judge held that the Government having waived the condition of self- cultivation by the allottees, the said land could be got cultivated through tenants and the allottees had the right to receive rents therefrom. Since the "right to receive rent" was included in the definition of "land" as given in section 2(3)(d) of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, which definition was incorporated in the definition of "agricultural land" in the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, the respondents were entitled to pre-empt the said land. The learned Judge also held that in order to maintain a suit for preemption it was not essential in all cases to show that the property was tangible property, for even rights therein or connected therewith such As right of occupancy, right of Muqarrirdar, right to cut trees, right to receive rent by fiction of law were treated as "real property" and were pre-emptible. In this connection the learned Judge referred to Ghulam Khan v.
Dullah AIR 1944 Lah. 181, Fateh Muhammad v. Nazir Begum PLD 1985 Lah. 85, Jalla v. Nauranga AIR 1950 Lah. 62, Haji Sultan Muhammad v. Muhammad Siddiq PLD 1973 SC 347, Syed Abdur Rashid v.
Pakistan PLD 1962 SC 42 and Babu Ali Muhammad v. Mahmoodul Hasan PLD 1968 Lah.
329. On the question. Whether section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, stood in the way of a Court decree of pre-emption being nullified by a Collector, the learned Judge held that the law of pre-emption did not bring into effect any legal transfer of the land by or on behalf of the pre-emptor from the vendee to the pre-emptor, but only brought about a substitution and that though the Commissioner exercised his powers under one law to pre-empt allenation, he could not resist substitution of the vendee by a successful pre-emptor under the Pre- emption Act. In this connection, the learned Judge relied upon Muhammad Ibrahim v.
Hav.Muhammad Ilyas 1983 CLC 963 and Gulla v. Muhammad Ramzan PLD 1962 B.J.
33.
6. Being aggrieved by the above judgment the appellants preferred a direct appeal before this Court, which is now before us for disposal.
7. On behalf of the appellants it is submitted that what was sold by Lt. Zahid Jan was not the ownership rights in the disputed land, but tenancy rights or rights of cultivation and that the said land was therefore not pre-emptible. In this connection, the learned counsel has referred to the order of the Commissioner, Multan Division, dated 22-11-1974 by which Lt. Zahid Jan was granted permission to transfer the tenancy rights to the appellants under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. Under the said order, "type of tenancy" was described as Islamabad Oustees Scheme and the appellants as the transferee tenants were directed to fulfil the conditions of the tenancy and to be bound by any liabilities in respect thereof. The notice issued by the Tehsildar, Chichawatni, to the appellants on 25-4-1983 is also referred to show that instalments towards price had not been paid and that if the arrears were not cleared, the lands transferred to them could be resumed. The mutation effected in favour of the appellants on 12-12-1976 has also been referred to show that the disputed land was owned by the Provincial Government and was transferred by Lt. Zahid Jan as cultivator-in-possession in favour of the appellants as cultivators- in-possession. It is submitted that the vendor being only a tenant under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme and one not having paid the full price and having secured the proprietary rights to the disputed land, he did not transfer any proprietary rights by sale, but merely his tenancy rights and the said rights were in any case not pre-emptible. It is contended that the rights sought to be pre- empted did not fall under the definition of the term "land" as defined in the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, read with section 2(3)(f) of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act as the rights of an ordinary tenant were not the same as the rights of an occupancy tenant and the tenancy rights in dispute could not be pre-empted. It is further contended that the rights of transfer of tenancy in the disputed land being controllable by the provisions of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and the Commissioner being the person competent under the law to lay down the conditions for transfer of the same, after applying his judicial mind as to the suitability of the transferee to hold the tenancy as a colonist, it could not be said that the said tenancy rights were pre-emptible under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. It is lastly contended that the learned Judge should have followed the principle laid down in the case of Majid Ahmad v. Yousuf 1987 CLC 1891 in which a distinction had been drawn between the sale of colony land and sale of tenancy rights.
8. On behalf of the respondents it is submitted that in para 1 of the plaint it was specifically pleaded that the disputed land was owned and possessed by Lt. Zahid Jan, he having been permanently granted the same as compensatory grant under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme, and that the said para having been admitted by the appellants it was not open for them to question the full ownership title of Lt. Zahid Jan vendor after the said admission. It is further submitted that the disputed land fell under two categories; one in respect of which full price had been paid by the allottees and the other in which part price had been paid under the relevant scheme. The land under the first category comprised Khasra Nos. 14 to 25 of Square No,110 measuring 97 Kanals and 16 Marlas in respect of which sale-deed had been secured by Khan Muhammad son of Haider, the predecessor-in-interest of Lt. Zahid Jan and Khasra Nos.
1. To 13 of Square No,100 measuring 102 Kanals 4 Marlas in respect of which full price had been paid.
Since requisite permission under section 19 of the Colonisation of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 was granted by the Commissioner, Multan, and full price had also been paid in respect thereof, the sale by the vendor was of full proprietary rights in respect of the said two lots and not tenancy rights and therefore the said area in any case was preemptible. In this connection it is submitted that no sooner the full price was paid, in law the allottee could be treated as full proprietor notwithstanding the fact that the sale-deed was not available or that entries in the Revenue Record had not been made. In this connection the learned counsel refers to Ibrahim v. Mst. Rajji PLD 1956 (W.P.) Lahore 609, Ghulam Muhammad alias Ghulamoon v. Maula Dad 1980 SCMR 314, Muhammad Iqbal v. Mirza Muhammad Hussain PLD 1986 SC 70 and Ali Muhammad v. Rabia Bibi PLD 1971 Baghdad-ul-Jadid 38. As regards the second category, i.e, 419 Kanals of land, it is submitted that the tenants having a right to lease the said land and to recover rents, they had "a right to receive rent" which under section 2(3)(d) of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act stood included within the definition of "land" and that the said transfer of tenancy rights amounted to the transfer of land which for the purposes of the Punjab Pre-emption Act was pre-emptible. As regards the second category, the learned counsel, in the alternative, submits that even if this category of property could not be treated as "agricultural land", it could be treated as village immovable property and could be pre-empted, under section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act.
9. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents and have also perused the record. The fast question that arises is as to what is the nature of the grant that subsisted in favour of Lt. Zahid Jan vendor. The development of the Islamabad Oustees Scheme can be traced back to 1960. Under the Scheme prepared by the C.DA. For allotment of agricultural land to persons affected by acquisition of their lands, under the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, XXIII of 1960, persons owning cultivated agricultural land affected by the C.DA's acquisition programme were made eligible for allotment of agricultural land. Subject to availability in accordance with the objects and purposes of that Scheme. Lands in Montgomery, Multan and Guddu were reserved for the said purpose. Under para. 3 of the Scheme the conditions of allotment were as follows:- "Allotments made under this scheme will be subject to the following conditions and any breach thereof will render the allotment liable to cancellation:-
(a) the land allotted will be used only for agricultural purposes;
(b) no allottees will be permitted to transfer his/her allotment by mortgage, sale, gift, lease etc.;
(c) the allottee shall pay the price as fixed by the competent authority and in the manner prescribed by it;
(d) the conditions and orders issued from time to time by the Government, or by The competent authority will be strictly complied with; and
(e) the allottee shall become eligible for conferment of proprietary rights on fulfilment of the condition that the land has continuously been in his or her possession for self-cultivation for the period of 5 years commencing from the date of transfer of possession."
' Under letter No,5094-61/5062-C(V), dated 29-8-1961 from the Secretary (Colonies), Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, to the Director, Land Directorate, C.D.A., Rawalpindi, the Government of West Pakistan in the Revenue and the Rehabilitation Department earmarked 15,000 acres for resettlement of persons affected by the construction of the Federal Capital at Islamabad. Amongst conditions regarding eligibility it was inter alia stated that allotment of subsisting holdings would be made only to those persons who were prepared to cultivate the lands themselves. By letter No,1714-64/446-S(F)II, dated 17-2-1965 from Mr. A.H. Masud, P.C.S., Deputy Secretary to Government of West Pakistan, Colonies Department, to the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, a Scheme for the resettlement of displaced persons of Islamabad was issued. Under para. 1 thereof the C.D.A.
Would select land in the Sahiwal District for allotment to the displaced persons and eventually for sale by private treaty to them and would intimate their selection to the Deputy Commissioner.
Under para 3, the C.D.A. Would issue eligibility certificates to the persons entitled to the grant of the land, against, *hich the Collectors of the Districts would pass formal orders of allotment under section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, and place the displaced persons provisionally in possession of the land. Under para. 4, the price to be charged from the displaced persons would be the market price as defined in section 2 (k) of Ordinance XXIII of 1960.
Under para 5, the whole of the price would be payable in 10 years by six monthly instalments, with grace periods fixed for the payment of the advance after the displaced persons were placed in possession of the land. Under para 9, after advance was paid by the allottee, details of Khasra numbers allotted to him had to be supplied to the allottee. Under para 10, the Board of Revenue would scrutinise the land to be allotted to each displaced person, whereafter agreement for sale was to be executed by the grantee in the form reproduced at pages 66-73 of the Puhjab Colony Manual, Vol. II (1942 Edition) as amended. Under para. 12 one-tenth of the price had to be paid as advance, while the remaining price had to be paid in 18 half-yearly equal instalments. Under para 13, after the full price was paid, a deed of conveyance had to be executed in favour of the transferee in the form of Schedule 'B' reproduced at page 74 of the Punjab Colony Manual, Vol. II (1942 Edition). Under para 14, the grant of the State land was subject to General Colony Conditions, 1938, under section 10(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, so far, as they could be made applicable thereto. And under para 15, these instructions were to apply to Islamabad oustees settled in Multan District also. By letter No,6932-74/5217-CI, dated 3040-1974 from the Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Colonies Department, inter alia a restriction was placed on the Islamabad displaced persons from alienating by sale, gift or mortgage the land allotted to them, till they had acquired proprietary rights therein and the condition of self- cultivation imposed by letter, dated 29-8-1961 was waived. Two further letters from the Board of Revenue (Colonies Department) in respect of the said Scheme followed , namely, those dated 4-3- 1986 and 23-2-1987, but not being relevant for the present case, need not be discussed. However, by letter No,1528-87/1530-CI, dated 18-6-1987 it was observed that it had come to the notice of the Board of Revenue, Punjab, that frequent transfers/alienations of State land under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, allotted to the oustees of Islamabad and other areas had taken place in many Districts and in order to safeguard possible hardships to the oustees, as well as to make those Schemes a real success, the Board of Revenue had decided to ban transfer of tenancies by the oustees under different Schemes by sale, gift or mortgage before execution of conveyance deeds in their names.
10. The terms and conditions of agreement for sale which appear at pages 66-73 of the Punjab Colony Manual, Vol. II (1942 Edition), clearly show under heading "STATEMENT OF CONDITIONS ...", that the statement of conditions on which the grant was issued was subject to the provisions of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, and the tenancy granted to the allottee on those conditions was a scheduled tenancy under' section 4 of the said Act. Under para. 1(b) of the operative part, the land was granted for the purposes solely of agriculture. Under para 1(d), the price to be paid was stated, and the statement that the first instalment had been paid and the balance would be payable in instalments was set down. Under para 1(e), the grantee had to pay land revenue demand for the time being assessed on the land. Under para 3(f), the grantee, without the permission in writing of Government first obtained, could not assign, sublet or transfer by mortgage or otherwise or part with the land or any part thereof, except by way of sub-lease for agriculture to such sub-tenants as he had reasonable cause to believe would cultivate the land with their own hands in the manner provided by that agreement. Under para 3(g), the grantee could not do or suffer to be done any act inconsistent with or injurious to the said purpose of agriculture.
11. From the above resume, it would appear that the grant of land to the Islamabad oustees was a proprietary grant on the terms and conditions contained in the Scheme and in the agreement for sale which inter alia provided:---
(a) that the grantee would use the land for agriculture and for no other purpose;
(b) he would pay to the Government land revenue and other payments which may become due to the Government at the proper time and place and in such manner as may be prescribed by law;
(c) without the permission in writing of Government first obtained, he would not assign, sublet or transfer or mortgage or otherwise part with land or any part thereof, except by way of sublease for agriculture to such sub-stenants as he may have reasonable cause to believe would A cultivate the land with their own hands in the manner provided by the agreement for sale;
(d) he would not suffer to be done any act inconsistent with or injurious to the said purpose of agriculture or to any of the rights excepted and reserved to Government to pay the advance payment and the instalments towards price in due time as provided in the scheme;
(e) that the grant would be subject to the General Colony Conditions, 1938 under section 10(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, so far as they were applicable thereto; and
(I) till full proprietary rights were secured against full price, the grantee would be deemed to be a tenant of such land on the terms stated in the agreement for sale, which would be deemed to be a scheduled tenancy under section 4 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912.
' It is submitted that none of the allottees in Sahiwal District executed any agreement for sale as provided in para. 9 of the Scheme. However, this is besides the point, for the lands were allotted under the Scheme, under which the agreement for sale had to be executed, and the terms and conditions contained in the agreement for sale could not be avoided and would thus apply. The impugned sale of seven lots of this case took place on 12-12-1974. Before this date, by letter No,6932-74/5217-CI, dated 30-10-1974 the Government of the Punjab inter alia had restricted the transfer of rights by the allottees by sale, gift or mortgage, until they had acquired proprietary rights therein and had also waived the condition of self-cultivation imposed by the earlier memo'
' No, 5094-61/5062-CV, dated 29-8-1961. It appears that notwithstanding this bar, the Commissioners of Sahiwal and Multan under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, kept giving permission to allottees who had not yet acquired proprietary rights to transfer their tenancies. In this case, such a permission was granted to the appellants. By virtue of section 11 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, the tenancy in question, subject to the provisions of the Act, had to be treated as a grant under the Crown Grants Act, 1885, and to be construed under the provisions of that Act. Under section 3 of the Crown Grants Act, 1885, a grant has to be strictly construed according to its tenor, any rule of law, statute or enactment to the contrary notwithstanding, but in view of section 11 of the Colonization Act any statement or condition in a grant violating any provision of the Colonization Art would have no force. The bar to transfer of tenancies contained in the Punjab Government's letter, dated 30-10-1974 being in violation of section 19 of the Colonization Act, would be ultra vires the Act and have no force. This accounts for the fact why Government did not resume the land for violation of the term banning transfer, which is apparent from the Board's letter, dated 18-6-1987 which showed that it had given the "Nelson's' eye" with regard to such past violations. Taking everything into consideration basically Lt. Zahid Jan, vendor/allottee, was nothing but a tenant of the allotted land under a permanent grant giving him the right to secure proprietary rights, after the payment of full price, with the obligation to cultivate the land and, till he secured full proprietary rights thereto, to be bound by the statement of the. Conditions contained in the agreement for sale and subsequent amendments made thereto or in the Scheme.
12. I now turn my attention to the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. Under section 4, the right of pre- emption extends to the right of a person to acquire agricultural land or village immovable property or urban immovable property in preference to other persons, and it arises in respect of such land only in the case of sales and in respect of such property only in the case of sales or foreclosures of the rights to redeem such property. Under section 3(1), "agricultural land" means land as defined in the Punjab Alienation of Laud Act, 1900, but does not include the rights of a mortgagee whether usufructuary or not, in such land. Under section 3(2) "village immovable property" means immovable property within the limits of a village, other than agricultural land. Under section 2(3) of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, the expression "land" means land which is not occupied as the site of any building in a town or village and is occupied or let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture or for pasture, and includes (a) the sites of buildings, and other structures on such land; (b) a share in the profits of an estate or holding; (c) any dues or any fixed percentage of the land revenue payable by an inferior landowner to a superior landowner, (d) a right to receive rent; (e) a right to water enjoyed by the owner or occupier of land as such; (f) any right of occupancy; and (g) all trees standing on such land.
13. The first question is whether the tenancy rights of the nature described in para. 11 above is agricultural land within the meaning of section 4 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. Tenancy_ rights are nothing but a compendium of rights in the land--the right of possession, user and usufruct in land belonging to another for a certain time or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, or rent, a share of crops, service, etc., to be payable to that other, who is the owner or transferor of such rights. As against this, land is tangible property, capable of title, possession, use, alienation, enjoyment of its usufruct, etc. The sale of land amounts to the transfer of all the rights in land which an owner possesses. In Syed Abdur Rashid v. Pakistan PLD 1962 SC 42, Haji Sultan Muhammad v. Muhammad, Siddiq PLD 1973 SC 347, Fazal Din v. Sadiq Khan 1982 SCMR 1126 and Roshan All v. Noor Khan PLD 1985 SC 228 this .Court treated confirmed allottees, who had almost all the rights in the land confirmed in their favour, except title, which still vested in the Custodian, as having rights in "real property". In Syed Abdur Rashid's case (supra) and Amir Din v. Sabir Hussain PLD 1979 Lah. 896, occupancy tenants, being in a somewhat similar position, were treated similarly. The Islamabad oustee had tenancy rights in the land, but not land. He had some rights in the land, with a clog which barred their transfer without permission, but the title and the proprietary rights remained with the Government. The transfer of tenancy rights therefore did not amount to the sale of land.
14. The view of the learned Single Judge that since the tenancy rights included within its compass the right of the transferee to receive rents from sub-tenants, assuming sub-tenants were there or could be inducted later, and therefore the said right to receive rent rendered the tenancy by legal fiction as land, because of section 2(3)(d) of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, cannot be accepted. Tenancy rights is one thing; the right to receive rent is another. The first encompasses a number of rights in land; the latter, the right to receive rent simpliciter. The fact that the transfer of tenancy rights enables the transferee to receive rents from sub-tenants, if any existing, or to' be inducted, does not make the tenancy one to receive rent. The mutation Exh. P.4 in question, dated 11-12-1974 refers to transfer of cultivation rights in the disputed land and not a transfer of a right to receive rent. Though the former may encompass the latter, it does not render the former by any legal fiction as land. The legal fiction was intended to cover cases of receipt of rent simpliciter. The learned Single Judge has apparently overlooked the real intent behind clauses (b) to (e) of subsection (3) of section 2 of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, which was to render such items simpliciter by legal fiction as land" and not where, such shares, dues or rights were part of the very land itself which was being permanently alienated or part of a group of rights compendiously described or known by different names, such as tenancy rights, mortgage rights, etc. To treat transfer of tenancy rights under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, as sale of agricultural land for purposes of pre-emption, would be to create a serious departure from the established practice, which has never treated such transfers as pre-emptible.
15. The next question that arises is whether tenancy rights fall in the category of "village immovable property". In Ali Muhammad's case (supra) and Sultan Mahmood's case (supra), the learned Judges took the view that as a mortgagee had an interest in land, which by various authorities was treated as "benefits to arise out of land" and since by section. 3(25) of the General Clauses Act, X of 1897, the definition of immovable property inter alia included "Ian and benefits to arise out of lands", a mortgagee's interest in village land could be treated as village immovable property within the meaning of section 3(2) the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, and therefore on the same analogy the E interest of a confirmed allottee in village land could be treated as village immovable property.
Village immovable property, by virtue of section 3(2) the Pre-emption Act, 1913, means immovable property within the limits of a village other than agricultural land. It would therefore include all buildings and structures and non-agricultural land within the limits of a village. The tenancy rights in the instant case, even if they be equated with "benefits to arise out of land", neither relate to non- agricultural land in Chak No,6/11-L, Tehsil and District Sahiwal, nor basically have anything to do with buildings or constructed property in that Chak. The tenancy rights in question therefore cannot be equated with village immovable property.
16. The only question that remains is that relating to two lots of property in respect of which the predecessors of the vendor had paid the full price, namely, Khasra Nos. 1-13 of Square No,100 measuring 102 Kanals and 4 Marlas and Khasra Nos. 14-25 in Square No,110 measuring 97 kanals 16.
Marlas. Necessary documents evidencing the said purchases exist in the two paper books. The said factum is not seriously denied by the appellants. They had actually admitted the factum of proprietory rights vesting in the respondents by admitting para. 1 of their plaint, though later they got fresh issues framed to show that the vendees had no propreitary rights. It is true that the sale- deed of the first lot was not executed by the Collector, but that relati to the second lot was and appears in the paper book; but the fact that the full price was paid for both the lots is sufficient to transfer the proprietary rights in favour of the allottees who had made the payments. If any authority is required for this view, Ibrahim's case (supra) and All Muhammad's case (supra) may be referred. In respect of these two lots, the predecessors of Lt. Zahid Jan having secured proprietary rights thereto, the sale of the same by Lt Zahid Jan in favour of the appellants was sale of agricultural land which was pre-emptible. The decree therefore in favour of the respondents is sustainable qua these two lots comprising an area of 200 kanals, but not the remaining land. The respondents are therefore liable to pay 200/688th share of the price and of the cost of improvements to the appellants. The respondents shall therefore pay Rs,70,000 to the appellants, being 'the proportionate price of the land, and Rs,29,070 to the appellants, being the proportionate share of the improvements made by them.
17. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal stands partly accepted, the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 23-3-1989 is set aside and that of the trial Court, dated 4-6-1984 is restored to the extent of 200 kanals of land referred to in para. 16 above, subject to deposit of the amount of Rupees Ninety-nine thousand and seventy (Rs,99,070) within a period of three months from the date of announcement of this judgment, minus any amount that may have already been paid or deposited by the respondents in Court. The parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal.