1. ' By a deed registered on 27-2-1975, Muhammad Ismail sold his 267 Kanals, 8 Marlas of land, in village Dev-Sami of Tehsil and District, Lahore for a consideration of Rs,65,000 to Muhammad Saleem Khan and his brother Chhota Khan. They were defendants in the pre-emption suit and were petitioners in this Court. Nawab Din son of Sidha and his two sons namely Ghulam Muhammad and Ibrahim asserting to be tenants-in-occupation of the above land claimed pre- emption in respect of its sale and brought a preemption suit in the Civil Court at Lahore. Upon enforcement of Act XLVIII of 1976, the pre-emption suit was transferred to the file of Collector, Lahore/A.D.C. (G), who upon holding its trial on merits gave decree for preemption in respect of the entire land to the pre-emptors subject to their payment of Rs, 65,000 within one month from the date of the decree. Vendees preferred an appeal to Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, Lahore. Appeal was allowed on 21-4-1983 and pre-emption suit dismissed in toto. Upon a further revision to Member, Board of Revenue, preferred by the pre-emptors, decision by the Additional Commissioner (Rev.) was set aside and that of the Collector restored on 9-7-1984 by the learned Member Board. Thereupon, a petition, in extraordinary jurisdiction, was presented to this Court by the vendees for setting aside of the last decision and consequent dismissal of the pre- emption suit filed against them.
2. ' Only point surviving for decision in the writ petition was about superior right of pre-emption claimed by the respondents. They gave oral evidence and tendered copies of revenue records in support of it. Vendees also gave evidence in rebuttal. Trial Court found the issue relating to superior right of pre-emption in favour of the respondents and court-fee paid upon the plaint sufficient.
3. Learned Additional Commissioner devoted much of his attention to the issue of delayed payment of court-fee on the plaint and having found it against the respondent, addressed himself to the question of tenancy in para. 7 of his judgment. It reads:-- "As for the tenancy, the pre-emptor is supposed to prove his possession at all the three stages of the case i,e,, at the time of sale, at the time of institution of the suit and at the time of passing of the decree. The possession of the respondents at all the three stages of the case is proved only on few Khasra numbers while the documentary evidence negates the rest. The major portion of the land has been shown under the cultivation of Ismail, vendor and three other persons i,e, Audoh, Ali Muhammad and Ghulam Rasool. It will be appreciated that according to the Evidence Act, documentary evidence is more authentic and weighty than the ocular evidence on the same point.
4. Therefore, the unchallenged record of Khasra Girdawari would prevail in the matter of tenancy. I would have kept the decree intact to the extent of the Khasra numbers which remained under the tenancy of the respondents at all the three stages of the case, but for the deficiency in the court- fee, which has proved fatal to the right of the respondents."
5. ' From the extract quoted above, it must be clear that the Additional Commissioner was not satisfied with the fullness of the pre-emptive right claimed by the respondents regarding the entire land. In revision, learned Member had dealt with the point respecting tenancy as:-- "On the question of tenancy, the learned Additional Commissioner has also not mentioned any specific field Nos, on which the continuous tenancy of the petitioners was not established. Here again his fmdings seem to be based on some impression, the details of which are not available in his ordeRs,"
6. ' This was all that the learned Member said on the disputed tenancy in his final order. He felt content with it and set aside the decision by the Additional Commissioner on this score. Even a prima facie glance at the judgment would amply demonstrate that it considerably falls, short of legal requirements of a proper judgment by a Court of law deciding on the rights of the parties.
7. Subpara. 7 of para. 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation conferred revisory powers on the Board of Revenue to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the proceedings or orders made by the authorities subordinate to it. In the process of opinion making on the correctness, legality or propriety of the proceedings or orders sought to be revised the Board was obliged to examine the material available to it like a Civil Court. Learned Member neither adverted to oral evidence nor addressed himself to the revenue records and yet he reversed the decision of Additional Commissioner and restored that of the Collector with observations consisting of few lines. He may have looked into the record but his judgment did not indicate so. A party bringing his cause to the Court for adjudication was entitled to know the reasons how his cause was dealt with.
8. Brief and sketchy judgment did not meet the requirements of law and also failed to satisfy the searching mind of a litigant. Revision in para.25 was not hedged in by restrictions mentioned in section 115 of Civil Procedure Code. Had it been a case of an appeal, I would have dealt with it on its merits for a final judgment but the scope in writ jurisdiction being limited and also prohibitive of substitution of opinion, the matter required fresh consideration in the proper forums. In the context, the proper forum would be the Additional Commissioner's Court and the parties were agreed on that forum. I would, therefore, accept the writ petition, set aside the order dated 9-7-1984 of learned Member, Board of Revenue and that of learned Additional Commissioner (Rev.) dated 21- 4-1983 and direct re-hearing and decision afresh of the appeal upon the existing records by the learned Additional Commissioner (Rev) on the limited point relating to superior right of preemption claimed by the plaintiffs-respondents. There shall be no order as to costs in this Court. Parties shall appear before the learned Additional Commissioner (Rev.), Lahore Division, Lahore on 1-2-1993.
9. Records be returned.