1. ' These were six connected Civil Revisions Nos. 1749 to 1754/D of 1984 by the sole defendant in equal number of pre-emption suits decreed in the lower appellate Court by reversing the judgments of the trial Court which in turn had dismissed them on account of urban character of the properties sold in them.
2. ' Facts were common; evidence led was of identical nature and the sole point of law requiring determination in all these cases was also similar; whether various parcels of property sold were urban immovable property and not susceptible to pre-emption under the provisions of Punjab Pre- emption Act, 1913.
3. ' First, a brief reference to facts in case shall be helpful:--- ' Civil Revision No,1749/D of 1984: Atta Muhammad sold five Marlas of his land out of Killa No,6/1 of Square No,6 comprised in Khata. No,13, Khautuni No,13 min, situated in Chak No,371/JB, Gojra, to Safia Begum minor daughter of Nek Muhammad, on 18-8-1981, for Rs,5,000. Nek Muhammad acted as guardian ad litem for her minor daughter in the preemption suit. Noor Muhammad claimed pre- emption in respect of the sale. He asserted his superior right of pre-emption as brother of the vendor; part owner in the joint Khata and owner of the estate. Pre-emption suit was instituted by him on 16-8-1982. In the written statement filed on her behalf, the defendant contested the suit instituted against her. On 5-2-1983, trial Court settled five issues including that of relief. Principal issue surviving for decision was; whether suit land was pre-emptible.
4. ' Civil Revision No,1750/D of 1984: Atta Muhammad sold five Marlas out of Killa No,6/1 of Square No,6 comprised in Khata No,13, Khautuni No,13 min. Situated in Chak No,371/JB, to Razia Begum on 18-8- 1981 for Rs,5,000. Sale was evidenced by a registered deed. Noor Muhammad claimed preemption in respect of the sale on aforementioned grounds. Vendee-defendant resisted the suit. Amongst other pleas, principal defence taken was whether property sold was urban immovable property and was immune from preemption. On 6-11-1982, the trial Court settled three issues including that of relief. Issue No, 1 surviving for decision was ; whether the suit land was preemptible.
5. ' Civil Revision No,1751/D of 1984: Atta Muhammad sold five Marlas of his land out of Killa No,6/1 of Square No,6, in Khata No,13, Khautuni No,13 min. In Chak No,371/JB, Gojra to Zafar Iqbal son of Roshan Din on 18-8-1981 for Rs,5,000 Noor Muhammad claimed pre-emption on aforementioned grounds. Vendee-defendant contested the suit. Principal defence again was that the property purchased by him had acquired the status of urban immovable property and was, therefore, not pre-emptible. On 6-11-1982, three issues including that of relief were framed by the trial Court. Only issue. No,1 relating to urban character of the property survived for decision in the civil revision.
6. ' Civil Revision No,1752/D of 1984: By a sale deed registered on 18-8-1981, Atta Muhammad sold another piece of five Marlas out . Of Killa No,6/1, Square No,6, Khata No,13, Khautuni No,13 min. In Chak No,371/JB, Goira to Javed Iqbal son of Roshan Din. The sale was also subjected to pre- emption by Noor Muhammad on similar grounds. Pre-emption suit was instituted on 16-8-1982.
7. Defendant contested the suit. Necessary issues were settled by the trial Court on 13-1-1983. Only issue surviving for decision in the civil revision was about the pre-emptibility of the sale transaction on account of urban character of immovable property conveyed in it.
8. ' Civil Revision No,1753/D of 1984: Atta Muhammad sold his five Marlas of land out of Killa No,6/] of Square No,6 to Ghulam Mustafa minor son of Roshan Din for a sum of Rs,5,000. Sale was pre- empted by Noor Muhammad on the aforementioned grounds. Roshan Din acted as guardian ad litem for his minor son in the pre-emption suit. Necessary issues were settled by the trial Court. Only issue surviving for decision was about the character of the property sold and its pre-emptibility.
9. ' Civil Revision No,1754/D of 1984: Atta Muhammad sold 5-1/2 Marlas out of his above land to Parveen Akhtar daughter of Nek Muhammad on 18-8-1981. Noor Muhammad claimed pre-emption in respect of the sale on the aforementioned grounds. Defendant contested the suit. The trial Court framed necessary issues. Only issue alive for decision was about the urban character of the.Property and its pre-emptibility under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913.
10. ' Though, the pre-emption suits were tried on separate records and evidence was recorded in each suit. Yet, the witnesses produced on either side and character of their evidence were verbatim record of the other cases. The plaintiff appeared as a party witness as P.W.1. Abadan appeared as P.W.2 to support him. Documents marked Exhs. P.1 to P.4 i,e, the sale deed, statements of annual net profits and an extract from Khasra Girdawari from Kharif 1980 to Kharif 1981 were tendered in evidence by the plaintiff in each suit. Mushtaq Ahmed and Manzoor Ahmad D.Ws.1 and 2 gave evidence for the defendant in each suit and either the defendant or guardian ad litem or Mukhtar- e-Khas as the case may be appeared as D.W.3 in each case. At the risk of repetition, it may be noticed that the evidence in all the suits was of common and identical nature.
11. ' Upon scrutiny of evidence, trial Court found that the property sold had acquired urban character and was immune from pre-emption. In taking this view, it relied upon a case reported as PLD 1975 Lah.
359. In consequence, all the six pre-emption suits were dismissed by it, on this score, on 6-6-1984.
12. In six separate appeals preferred by the plaintiff, learned District Judge reversed the judgments and decrees of the trial Court and instead gave decrees in the pre-emption suits to the plaintiff on 30-9-1984. It was held that the property sold was village immovable property and reliance for this view was placed upon judgment of this Court reported as PLD 1979 Lah.
544. Thereupon, these revision petitions were instituted in this Court and were admitted to hearing for decision of the principal point noticed above.
13. ' Seen from the above, only point for decision in all these civil revisions was about the character of the property sold by Atta Muhammad and its pre-emptibility. Precisely, the point at issue was; whether the land had acquired the status of urban immovable property or it was piece of village immovable property for purpose of Pre-emption Act, 1913. 'Urban immovable property' as defined in section 3 (3) of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 shall mean "immovable property within the limits of a town, other than agricultural land. For the purposes of this Act, a specified place shall be deemed to be a town---(a) if so declared by the Board of Revenue by notification in the official Gazette, or
(b) if so found by the Courts". Admittedly, the location of the land in dispute did not fall within the municipal limits of Gojra. The place was also not declared a town for purposes of pre-emption. Nor was it ever found to be a town by the Courts in the remote or immediate past. Alienated parcels of land were part of a Chak. Character of the land at the time of its sale was described as Nehri in an extract from Register Khasra Girdawari marked Exh. P4. Atta Muhammad had sold small pieces of five and five and half Marlas to the vendees through separate sale-deeds. Obviously, sales must be for residential purposes because such small pieces of land were not purchased for purposes of agriculture. It was in evidence that a residential colony had sprung up in Square No,6 of the Chak but this factor by itself would not be sufficient to show that the properties sold were in the nature of urban immovable property. The Chak still retained its pastoral character and the people residing in it had not shed off their agricultural pursuits. At least, there was no evidence to that effect on files of the cases. Other indicia for finding a place to be a 'town' were also not found existing at the spot.
14. There was no evidence to show the distance of the land in dispute from the municipal limits of Gojra. Related factors enumerated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nasir Abbas v. Manzoor Haider Shah PLD 1989 SC 568 and reiterated in its judgment in Abdul Haq and 4 others v. Sardar Shah and others 1994 PSC 124 were also missing on record. Decision in Abdul Samad and another v.
15. Ghulam Rasool 1988 CLC 1009 and my own decision in Abdullah and 2 others v. Sher Khan 1989 CLC 1732 also assisted the point at issue to hold that the property in dispute could not be invested with the status of urban immovable property. Upon the above view of record and the law applicable to it, it was clear that the view taken of the character of the property by learned District Judge was correct and the same was rightly held as pre-emptible either as agricultural land or village immovable property.
16. ' Having regard to the aforesaid, all these six civil revisions were found to have no merits in them.
17. These are consequently dismissed with no order as to their costs in this Court.
18. ' Records shall be returned.