The present litigation, between the parties, rages round the suit land, fully detailed in the heading of the plaint. The owner of the land, in the first instance, entered into a negotiated sale with the petitioner (plaintiff-pre-emptor) and in this respect Mutation No. 203 was entered on 18-12-1990 (Exh.P.W.l/5) by the Patwari, at their instance. However, the vendor, subsequently, backed out from this transaction.
2. Later on, the petitioner came to know that the respondent (defendant-- vendee) had purchased the suit land vide: Mutation No.204 attested on 27-12-1990 (Exh.P.W.l/6) without any notice to him or to the general public of the locality or area.
3. It will not be out of place to mention here that prior to that, respondent No. l had sold 1 Kanal and 3 Marlas of land, in these very survey numbers, to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.1,00,000 through Mutation No. 196 attested on 28-6-1990 (Exh.PWI/7). This land was contiguous to the land and house belonging to the petitioner.
4. It has been alleged in the plaint that an inflated amount of Rs.3,00,000 was entered in the impugned sale Mutation No.204 so as to deter the possible pre-emptors, including the petitioner, from pre-emption the transaction in question. According to the petitioner the true/real market value of the suit land was not more than Rs.70,000. It has been further alleged that the petitioner, being the contiguous owner of the land, which is the subject-matter of the sale, has a superior pre- emptive right whereas the vendees are not possessed of such right. On these facts and allegations, the petitioner has brought the present action to enforce his right of pre-emption in respect of the suit land on payment of Rs.70,000.
5. The defendant-vendees (respondents) submitted joint written statement and controverted all the allegations contained in the, plaint. They raised a number of technical and factual objections and denied the petitioner's right of pre-emption as well as his allegation that the land was sold for Rs.70,000. On the contrary, they asserted that the land was, in reality, purchased by them for Rs.3,00,000.
6. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to as many as 9 issues. However,; for the purpose of this revision petition, Issues Nos.5 and 6 are most important. These issues relate to---
(i) the superiority of right of pre-emption, and
(ii) the fact whether the sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000 was fixed in good faith or was actually paid.
7. Both the parties adduced evidence for and against their respective cases. After the consideration of the evidence, the Civil Judge (1st Class) Peshawar, Mr. Ikramullah Khan, held that the requisite ' Talbs' were complied with by the petitioner before bringing the present action, inasmuch as he, on gaining the knowledge of sale, forthwith, announced his intention to exercise his right of pre-emption; that he then went to the house of the defendant-vendees, alongwith property dealer Faizullah (P.W.4) to exercise his right and that thereafter he had sent registered notice (Exh.PW.2/1) which was duly received by the respondent --vendees. On the other hand, defendant-vendees failed to establish that the petitioner had prior knowledge of sale or that the requirements of law relating to "Talbs" were not fulfilled by him. Having thus laid the foundation for the exercise of his right of pre-emption, the petitioner has a cause of action to come to the Court on the basis of contiguity, which is not even denied by the defendant/vendees. Rather, it has been admitted by the defendant/vendee No.1 that he had sold one Kanal and three Marlas of land in these very survey fields to the petitioner and that such land is contiguous to the land in dispute.
8. Thus, on these findings, the Civil Judge answered Issues Nos. l, 3 and 5 in favour of the petitioner.
While dealing with Issues Nos.6 and 7 he came to the conclusion that since the petitioner, prior to the sale in dispute, had purchased land for Rs.1,00,000, therefore, the same represents the true market value and accordingly fixed that very amount as the price of the suit land. It was also held that the suit land was agricultural land and hence the court-fee was properly fixed in respect thereof. On the basis of his findings the Civil Judge granted a decree for the possession of land, through pre-emption, to the petitioner on payment of Rs.1,00,000 vide: his order dated 20-6-1993 with no order as to costs.
9. Feeling aggrieved by the decision, mentioned above, two appeals were filed in the Court of Additional District Judge, Peshawar, One by defendant/veadees who alleged "Talbs" were not complied with by the petitioner nor had he a superior pre-emptive right and that a sum of Rs.3,00,000 was in fact paid as the price of the suit land and the same represents its market value.
The other appeal was filed by the petitioner who simply raised a plea that the suit land was in fact sold for Rs.70,000 and that the Civil, Judge had wrongly fixed Rs.1,00,000 as its market value.
10. The Additional District Judge did not advert to the evidence for giving his findings on such points which were raised in the Memorandums of Appeal nor discussed them in proper way to dispose them of. It may be noted that none of the contesting parties had canvassed that the points in question needed further evidence and that they be given a chance to adduce further/additional evidence. Nevertheless, the Additional District Judge, vide: his order dated 3-1-1995, remanded the case with the directions to give findings on all the issues separately in the light of the evidence so produced by the parties. The matter of the fact is that findings, on all issues, have been precisely given by the Civil Judge without any ambiguity.
11. What constitutes a legal judgment in proceedings of this nature has been the subject of long catena of decided cases. However, in this context purpose will be served, if reference is made, with advantage, to a case reported as PLD 1970 SC page 173 (Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan and others). The relevant portion is reproduced herein: --- "To deal with the second contention first, there is no doubt that the High Court's order which is unfortunately perfunctory gives the on impression of a hasty off hand decision which, although found to be correct in its result, is most deficient in its content. If a summary order of rejection can be made in such terms, there is no reason why a similar order of acceptance saying 'there is considerable substance in the petition which is accepted' should not be equally blessed. This will reduce the whole judicial process to authoritarian decrees without the need for logic and reasoning which have always been the traditional pillars of judicial pronouncements investing them with their primary excellence of propriety and judicial balance. Litigants who bring their disputes to the law Court with the incidental hardships and expenses involved do expect a patient and a judicious treatment of their cases and their determination by proper orders. A judicial order must be a speaking order manifesting by itself that the Court has applied its mind to the resolution of the issues involved for their proper adjudication. The ultimate result may be reached by a laborious effort, but if the final order does not bear an imprint of that effort and on the contrary discloses arbitrariness of thought and action, the feeling with its painful results, that justice has neither been done nor seem to have been done is inescapable. When the order of a lower Court contains no reasons, the appellate Court is deprived of the benefit of the views of the lower Court and is unable to appreciate the processes by which the decision has been reached. In this case the learned counsel naturally criticised the High Court's order for its utter barrenness but he was definitely at an advantage in presenting the various aspects of his argument without any hindrance offered by the ineffectiveness of the impugned order."
12. The judgment recorded by the Additional District Judge, I am constrained to remark, has not attained the standard laid down in the above weighty observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Rather it manifests that he has not applied his mind to the resolution of issues involved in the case in hand and has chosen to remand the case on the grounds which never existed at all. He has certainly miserably failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and thus acted with illegality.
13. In order to shorten litigation, I have taken upon myself the legal obligation to dispose of the points involved in this revision petition which has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment of Additional District Judge dated 3-1-1995 referred to above.
14. The first point which needs consideration is whether "Talb-i-Ishhad" is not in accordance with section 13 of the Pre-emption Act, 1987. It is in the evidence of Tilla Muhammad-vendee that prior to the purchase of the suit land, he did not talk about the transaction to the petitioner not had he informed him about it in any manner. The petitioner says that the transaction was brought about in a secret manner and that he had gained "knowledge" of the same on 5-3-1991 that defendant- vendees had purchased the suit land and that on the very day at 4-30 p.m. He visited the house of vendees and made a demand of land by exercising of his right of pre-emption. He further slated, that, thereafter he sent registered notices to them in the shape of Exh.PW.2/1, and the said notices were duly received by them as is evident from receipts Exh.PW2/3 and Exh.PW2/4. From these items of evidence it is crystal clear that the defendants (respondents) had kept the sale secret and had not disclosed it and thus failed to show that the petitioner had prior knowledge of, the sale in question. It is in the evidence that as soon as the petitioner came to know about the sale, he went to the house of the defendant- vendees, demanded the land and intimated his intention to get the same by exercising his right of pre-emption, followed by registered notices. This fact is fully supported by the deposition of property dealer Faizullah (P.W.4) whom I have' no reason to disbelieve. The petitioner has thus satisfied the requirements of "Talbs" in accordance with section 13 of the Pre-emption Act, 1987. '
15. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had purchased 1 Kanal and 3 Marlas of land from vendees, prior to the sale in dispute, from these very survey fields in the same Khatas and this land was and is contiguous to the land in dispute. By sale of land earlier, the vendees had been left with no other land in suit Khasra numbers. Accordingly they have a status of strangers and the petitioner being owner of contiguous land has superior right of pre-emption. He is thus possessed of a cause of action to bring this suit for ore-emption. Issues Nos. 1, 3 and 5 are, therefore, decided in favour of the petitioner.
16. The only point which now remains for decision is as to whether vend have paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000 as the price of the suit land. There is on bald word of Tilla Muhammad-vendee, not backed by any document, evidencing payment of amount as is mentioned in the sale mutation. In the absence of payment of this amount, market value has to be determined. The petitioner, on the other hand, admits that the suit land was being purchased by him for Rs.2,00,000 and that in this behalf Mutation No.203 was duly entered. He is now estopped to say that this amount does not represent market value of the suit land. I, therefore, fix Rs.2,00,000 as the market value of the suit land.
17. No other point remains to be decided. Consequently I set aside the perfunctory judgment of the Additional District Judge, Peshawar delivered on 31-1-1995 and while modifying the judgment, dated 20-6-1993 of the Civil Judge, grant the petitioner a decree for the possession of land by pre- emption on payment of Rs.2,00,000. He is directed to pay the balance amount on or before 19-12- 1995 failing which his suit shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.