1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.---This appeal through leave of the Court has arisen out of a pre- emption matter. The order granting leave to appeal reads as follows:--- "Leave to appeal is sought from the judgment dated 29-3-1988 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in R.S.A. No, 69 of 1988 filed by the petitioners whereby the appellate Court judgment dated 6-2-1988 was confirmed, dismissing the petitioners' suit for preemption which was decreed by the trial Court through the judgment dated 6-2-1985, dismissing the same.
2. ' The facts to be noted are that the respondents purchased land measuring 100 Kanals through a registered sale-deed dated 20-5-1978 from one Zargham Ali. The petitioners filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption on the basis of their being owners in Khata of the suit property and owners of the estate. They also challenged the correctness of the price shown in the sale- deed. The above suit was resisted by the respondents but the learned trial Court decreed the same. Against the above judgment and decree, the respondents filed Civil Appeals Nos. 12-13 of 1986 which were allowed on the ground that the petitioners failed to prove their alleged superior right. Against the above judgment and decree, the petitioners filed aforesaid R.SA. Which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition.
3. ' In support of the above petition, Mian Muhammad Zafar Yasin, learned A.S.C. Appearing for the petitioners, has urged that the ground wich found favour with the two Courts below that the land on the basis of which the pre-emption right was claimed though owned by the petitioners was not assessed to land revenue and, therefore, they were not owners of the estate, is not tenable as the factum that no revenue was assessed on account of the fact that the land was exempted was not controverted.
4. ' We are inclinded to grant leave to consider the question, whether on the facts of the present case the learned first appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court which (view) has been maintained by the High Court."
5. The learned counsel have taken us through the various documents representing their views on possession, in the record of the rights. No doubt copy of Register Haqdaran which was before the Courts below (1974-75) does not clearly show that the land in question was assessed to land revenue. The copies of the record-of-rights prior and subsequent thereto however, clearly show that the land was assessed to land revenue. We have also noticed that the quality and nature of the land and the use to which it was being put as well as total area thereof together with its regional location, it would certainly be assessed to land revenue except of course few Marlas which might have escaped assessm ent on account of its having gone under Abadi. The explanation of the learned counsel for the appellants that Column No,9 which related to the assessment to land revenue should not and could not have been left blank. May be, as argued by him, it was an indvertent omission or a misapprehension that after an amendment in the Land Revenue Act by Act V of 1976 introducing section 56-A; the land in dispute even, though culturable, did not exceed the limit which would have attracted the levy of land revenue. In this behalf he argued that even though the levy may not have been compulsory, the assessment in accordance with the Land Revenue Act, of the land revenue and other dues had to be made and was in fact made.
6. ' The contention of the learned counsel seems to be right because the copies of the Register Haqdaran 1971 and 1984 which have been brought on record of this Court clearly show that the land in dispute was assessed to land revenue. On these findings this appeal merited to be accepted.
7. ' However, the respondents being absent and proceeded ex parte we requested Mr. M. Hanif Niazi, ASC; who was present in connection with another case, to prepare the appeal and assist us on behalf of the respondents. He argued, that Khata number of the land in dispute is different from the Khata number of the land mentioned in the records of 1971 and 1984. After proper checking we found that the original Khata number was 164 which was later changed to 166 and this position has been correctly represented in the record. Moreover, the Khasra numbers of the disputed land tally with the Khasra numbers given in the afore-referred documents which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Niazi also pointed out that the documents now relied upon were not placed before the lower Courts. To support this technical point, he in this behalf pointed out the provisions contained in Rules 1 and 2 of Order XIII. In this respect it needs to be pointed out that the respondents/defendants had not taken up the plea in the written statement with regard to the point regarding assessment of the land revenue. Thus the appellants had no notice about the subject-matter of the present discussion nor there was any issue. In any case the documents have been received and placed on record of this Court with permission.
8. ' Lastly, the learned counsel contended that according to old law of preemption which would apply to the present case, the appellants should be owners of the estate. He read out the definition of estate from the Land Revenue Act, 1967 and tried to argue that if the said definition is applied to the present case, in order to succeed in a pre-emption case the pre-emptor would haw. To show that he is the owner of the "entire" estate. We do not agree with him. The interpretation of provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act is otherwise; namely, that it would be enough for the plaintiff to show that he has the required qualification of owning particular type of land in the estate. It would he enough and it would not be necessary for him to show that he is the owner of the entire remaining estate.
9. ' In the light of the foregoing discussion this appeal is allowed. The judgments of the High Court and the First Appeal Court are set. Aside, while the judgment and decree of the trial Court is restored.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. ' We highly appreciate the conduct of Mr. Niazi who while appearing as helper of Court for justice sake free of charge in Islamic culture of litigation worked with if not more at least such diligence and zeal which compared well with a fee charged case.