- Advertisement -
ISLAMABAD, Jan 20 (APP):Supreme Court of Pakistan has dismissed a nearly 60-year-old right of pre-emption claim relating to agricultural land, declaring it premature, mala fide, and the result of collusion between the plaintiff and the vendor.
The apex court set aside the judgments of the Lahore High Court and the Additional District Judge, and rejected the plaintiff’s suit.
According to the court’s approved written detailed judgment issued for reporting, a two-member bench comprising Justice Shahid Bilal Hasan and Justice Shakeel Ahmed decided Civil Appeal No. 756/L/2012 after hearing the matter. The court held that the plaintiff, by his conduct, had waived his right of pre-emption and that the litigation was, in fact, a product of collusion between the seller and the plaintiff.
As per the judgment, 151 kanals and 11 marlas of agricultural land situated in village Raja Jang, Kasur district, were sold on July 17, 1967, through a registered sale deed by the plaintiff’s father. The plaintiff filed the pre-emption suit almost one year after the sale, on the last permissible day.
The Supreme Court observed that the plaintiff was fully aware of all stages of the sale transaction and was living in the same house as his father at the relevant time. Despite having complete knowledge, he neither asserted his right at the time of sale nor at the stage of registration.
The court held that remaining silent despite full awareness of the sale, allowing the transaction to be completed, and permitting the purchasers to act upon it amounted to a waiver of the right of pre-emption. Consequently, the plaintiff was no longer entitled to institute the claim at a later stage.
The judgment further noted that the Lahore High Court had committed a clear legal error by disregarding settled legal principles and by treating the plaintiff’s presence and knowledge as inconsequential, instead of conducting a holistic appraisal of the evidence on record.
The Supreme Court also observed that the right of pre-emption is a weak and “piratical” right, and that such claims are often instituted through close relatives with mala fide intentions and collusion. Expressing regret, the court noted that the plaintiff had dragged the litigation through various courts for nearly six decades, resulting in a waste of precious judicial time and obstructing the course of justice.
The court expressed serious concern over this trend and urged trial courts to actively discourage false, frivolous, and mala fide litigation in order to reduce the unnecessary burden on the judicial system.
The Supreme Court directed the parties to bear their own costs.