ABDUR RAHMAN KHAN, J.--- Submits that the disputed land has got the status of pond and neither it is agricultural land nor a subservient to agricultural. Relies on Tej Ram and others versus Tulsi and other 1898 Civil Judgments 48. It was next urged that if it is held to be agricultural land, even then it is not pre-emptiable as it is situated in urban area.
2. The learned counsel appearing on caveat submitted that the land in question has been recorded as agricultural land and it has not assumed the status of pond. He referred to Abdul Saeed and others versus Ch. Muhammad Latif Khan and others (1983 CLC 2491) to support his contention that the suit property being a pond was, not pre-emptiable.
3. In any case, in order to examine the above pleas in detail, we grant leave so as to resolve the controversy in the light of the cited judgments and documents available on the record.
4. Both the sides should maintain status quo.