In this second appeal arising from a pre-emption suit the only law point requiring determination as argued by learned counsel for the appellants was as to whether the sale in question in view of notification issued on 28-2-1944 that no right of pre-emption would exist in respect of an area to which Colonization of Government Lands .pct, 1912 was made applicable was pre-emptible.
2. According to the said notification was declared that no right of pre--emption would exist in respect of an area to which Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 was applicable. This notification was subsequently rescinded in the year 1973 but this rescission would not affect the present case inasmuch as the sale in question was made prior theretoi.e. 2-9-1968.
3. The land in dispute is admittedly situated in an area to which Thal Development Act, 1952 was applicable. Under the said Act, the land was acquired and it became vested in the Thal Development Authority. It is evident from Fard Taqseem (Exh.D.2) that the Thal Development Authority transferred this land to the vendor in lieu of his right of return which he sold and sought to be pre-empted by the respondent in whose favour a decree has been passed.
4. The two Courts below have held that the appellants did not succeed in establishing that to this land Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 was applicable, as such, the said notification was not applicable to this land. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to satisfy me that the land which was acquired by the Thal Development Authority and transferred to the vendor under the said Act, was covered by the said notification or that to this land Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 was applicable. He only argued that on the record a copy of decision taken by the Board of Revenue for conferring certain powers on EA.C.O. was produced which was sufficient to prove that the said Act was applicable. I am afraid the argument has no substance.
The decision to confer certain powers on EA.C.O. in respect of land covered by Thal Development Act, under the said Act was rather a proof of the fact that otherwise Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 was not applicable.
5. The finding of the Courts below that the land in dispute was pre emptible does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The appeal has no meritswhich is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.