' Briefly stated the facts are that land measuring 8 Kanals, 2 Marlas belonged to Boota alias Bagh son of Boora. He alienated the same in favour of Rehmatullah son of Fazal Din vide sale-deed, dated 16-1-1978. The plaintiff/respondent Allah Din (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) pre-empted the said sale on the basis of his tenancy over the said land. He requested the vendee Rehmatullah to accept his superior right of pre-emption, and hand over the possession, but he did not accede to his request, hence he was constrained to file the instant suit against the defendant/ petitioner Rehmatullah (predecessor-in interest of the petitioners) who denied his contentions and prayed for dismissal of suit.
2. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues: {{URDU TEXT}}
3. In support of his stand, the plaintiff Allah Din (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) examined Charagh P.W.1 and Muhammad Ali P.W.2 and recorded his own statement as P.W.3. He also brought on record documents Exhs.P6 and P.7 and thereafter, closed his evidence on 25-5- 1983. In rebuttal, the defendant (predecessor-in interest of the petitioners) examined Umar Din D.W.1 and Bagh alias Boota D.W.2 and appeared himself as D.W.3. He also brought on record documents Exh.D1 copy of Khasra Girdawri pertaining to Kharif 1979 to Rabi 1980 and Kharif 1980 and closed his evidence.
4. After going through the evidence produced by the parties, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) vide order, dated 15-2-1984. The defendant (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) filed an appeal with the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Lahore Division Lahore who accepted the same and remanded the case vide order, dated 4-5-1987. The plaintiff (predecessor-in interest of the respondents) filed a revision petition in the Board of Revenue against the said order, dated 4-5-1987 which was dismissed vide order, dated 5-3-1990. Against the said order, W.P. No,3136 of 1990 was filed by the plaintiff (predecessor in-interest of the respondents) which was accepted vide order, dated 29-10- 1991 and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector Sheikhupura with a direction to decide the matter on the basis of evidence recorded prior to 7-2-1981. After the remand of the suit by the High Court, the Assistant Commissioner/Collector Sheikhupura decided the suit in favour of the plaintiff (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) vide order, dated 15-5-1993. The defendant (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) felt aggrieved of the said order and again filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Lahore Division Lahore who also dismissed the said appeal vide order, dated 15-8-1994. Against this order, a revision petition was also filed in the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed on 6-11-1998. Hence the instant writ petition.
5. Contention of learned counsel for the defendant (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) is that as per order, dated 29-10-1991, the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector Sheikhupura was directed to dispose of the suit on the basis of evidence brought on record prior to 7-2-1981. His contention is that if the said evidence is taken into consideration, then the plaintiff (predecessor in- interest of the respondents) fails to prove that he was a tenant over the suit land at the time of sale as well as institution of this suit. He has referred to copy of khasragirdawari Exh.D1 wherein one Charagh son of Lashkar has been shown to be a tenant over the 'suit land. His contention is that this docume9t has not been taken into consideration by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector Sheikhupura while passing order, dated 15-5-1993.
6. A perusal of the record shows that original plaintiff Allah Din (predecessor-in interest of the respondents) filed the suit for possession through pre-emption being a tenant over the suit land.
To prove his contention, he has brought on record documents Exhs.P.4 and P.5 which are copies of Khasra Girdawris. He also brought on record statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2. In rebuttal, the defendant (predecessor-in interest of the present petitioners) has recorded his own statement as D.W.3. A perusal of the cross-examination of D.W.3 clearly shows that he has himself admitted that Allah Din plaintiff/predecessor-in interest of the respondents) was in possession at the time of institution of the suit and had agreed to get the possession of land from him in the month of Beesakh. This admission of Rehmatullah coupled with copies of Khasra Girdawris Exhs.P.4 and P.5 clearly prove that it was Allah Din predecessor-in-interest of the respondents who was cultivating the suit land at the relevant time. The defendant (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) neither examined Charagh son of Lashkar nor Bashir nor Mukhtar whom he alleged to be in possession of the land as a tenant to support his contention. This being the factual position, the Assistant Commissioner/Collector Sheikhupura has rightly decided the suit vide order, dated 15-5- 1993. No jurisdictional defect in the impugned order has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the defendant (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners). Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.