SC upholds dismissal of pre-emption suit for failure to prove mandatory demands

ISLAMABAD, Oct 14 (APP): Supreme Court has ruled that a claimant seeking to enforce the right of pre-emption must prove compliance with both mandatory legal demands, observing that failure to promptly and clearly assert the right after learning of a sale, or to establish the statutory requirements, can render the claim unsuccessful.

In a judgment authored by Justice Shahid Waheed, the court dismissed an appeal filed by Sarfraz Ahmed and others. A three-member bench comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan heard the case on October 13, 2026.

According to the case record, 30 kanals and two marlas of land in Mauza Chandrake Rajputan was sold for Rs195,000 on December 5, 1995, through Mutation No. 590. Muhammad Din, the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants, had filed a suit seeking possession of the land on the basis of the right of pre-emption.

The trial court decreed the suit in his favour on March 2, 2002, and the appellate court upheld the decision. However, the Lahore High Court set aside both judgments on April 30, 2015, and dismissed the suit.

The Supreme Court held that under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, a claimant must establish compliance with both Talab-i-Muwathibat (the immediate demand) and Talab-i-Ishhad (the confirmatory demand).

The claimant failed to prove the second demand because only one of the two attesting witnesses to the notices was produced in court, without any explanation for the absence of the other. The court observed that once the opposing party denied the notices, the burden rested on the claimant to prove their preparation and dispatch. Merely placing the notices on the judicial record was insufficient.

The court also noted that the land was transferred on December 5, 1995, while the claimant said he had made the immediate demand at 10am on January 10, 1996. Although he argued that the sale had not been publicly announced by the relevant authorities as required by law, he failed to produce satisfactory evidence to substantiate his claim.

The court further observed that a claimant could not indefinitely defer the statutory period for exercising the right of pre-emption merely by asserting that he learned of the sale at a later date. Where the legal conditions for presuming knowledge of the sale were met, the claimant had to establish the basis for avoiding that legal consequence.

Holding that the prescribed demands were substantive legal requirements rather than mere formalities, the Supreme Court found no ground to interfere with the Lahore High Court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal without any order as to costs.