' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---In this petition for review of the judgment of this Court two entirely new points have been taken. These are:
(1) During the pendency of the petition for special leave to appeal in this Court the respondent who was a pre-emptor had sold the land in dispute to a third person; this indicated that he was never interested in acquiring the land in dispute for himself by exercising the right of preemption; and
(2) the petitioners were entitled to receive the present market value of the land in dispute and not the price which they had paid to the vendor.
So far as the first contention is concerned we have seen the document produced by the petitioners in support of their assertion. It is merely an agreement to sell in future and does not constitute a sale by itself. There is no law which would stand in the way of a pre-emptor who has acquired land by exercising his superior right to dispose it of in future. As regards the second contention there is no legal basis for the same. It is to be noticed that the sale impugned in the suit took place before 6-7-1977, the respondent's suit was decreed for the first time by the District Judge on 15-6-1981 and the petitioners' appeal before the High Court was dismissed on 24-2-1986. Under the Punjab Pre- emption Act in force at the relevant time a pre-emptor was entitled to acquire the land sold in violation of his right at the price actually paid by the vendee to the vendor. This is the price which will be paid to the petitioners under the decree passed against him. He is not entitled to anything beyond that in this case.
2. This review petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed.