Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KHUBAIB AHMAD VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Raja Afrasiab Khan, Sajjad Ahmad Sipra, Muhammad Rafiq Tarrar Title: KHUBAIB AHMAD vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.34/SAC of 1991 Date of Judgment:1991-11-30 Reported As: 1992 SCMR 398 Result: Appeal partly accepted
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' JUSTICE MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR (CHAIRMAN).- Khubaib Ahmed, (25/26) son of Abdul Qadir, resident of village Jhalari, Police Station Jatoi, District Muzaffargarh, was tried by the learned Judge, Special Court for Speedy Trials, Multan, under section 364-A/377/302, P.P.C. And section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 on the allegation that on 19-9-1991 he abducted Mst. Farhat Mai, aged six years, and after subjecting her to his unnatural lust stragulated her to death. By judgment dated 4-11-1991 he was convicted and sentenced to R.I. For 25 years and 30 stripes under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, imprisonment for life and a line of Rs, 50,000 under section 377, P.P.C. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to suffer further R.I. For six months. Under section 302, P.P.C. He was sentenced to death to be hanged by the neck till he be dead. He has challenged his conviction and sentence through this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on the morning of 19-9-1991, Mst. Farhat Mai, aged six years, went to the house of Ghulam Yaseen for learning the Holy Qur'an whereafter she did not return home. Her father Manzoor Hussain returned from work at 12-00 noon and was informed by his wife that Mst. Farhat Mai was missing. He started search for her and during the course he was informed by Akhtar Hussain and Dilawar Hussain PWs that they had seen Mst. Farhat Mai in the company of Khubaib Ahmed going on the pathway leading to Chah Azhar Shahwala. They further told him that Mst. Farhat Mai was eating a biscuit and on their enquiry Khubaib had told them that he wis taking her to her father. As the girl could not be traced, her father Manzoor Hussain reported the matter at the police station on the next day i.e, on 20-9-1991 at 11-00 a.m. Vide F.I.R. Exh.PL expressing apprehension that Khubaib Ahmed might have murdered his daughter.
---
## Page 2
3. The prosecution story goes on that on 20-9-1991 at 3-00 p.m. Khubaib Ahmed appellant met Muhammad Iqbal P.W.9 at his shop when Muhammad Ramzan P.W.10 was also there. He told them that having committed a big crime he remained restless throughout the previous night and wanted to get punishment for the said crime in this world. He continued that on the preceding day at 8-30 a.m. When Mst. Farhat Mai came out of the house of Ghulam Yaseen after learning the Holy Qur'an he was present in front of his house and was eating a biscuit. He gave a biscuit to Mst. Farhat Mai and told her that he would take her to her father who was moulding bricks at Chah Azhar Shahwala. Then he took her to a cotton field and committed unnatural offence with her. She shrieked and he strangulated her to death. He requested them to produce him before the police lest he may be beaten to death by the villagers. Thereupon they produced him before Abdul Sattar Inspector/SHO who was present in the village and he arrested him. The appellant was wearing a blood-stained Chaddar.The SHO removed it from his person and took it into his possession vide memo Exh.PB. 4. Soon after his arrest, the appellant led the police to a cotton field from where he got recovered the dead body of Mst. Farhat Mai in the presence of Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ramzan P.Ws. 5. The S.H.O. Prepared the injury statement Exh.P.F. And inquest report Exh. P.G. In respect of the dead body of the Mst. Farhat Mai and despatched it to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. 6. On 21-9-1991 at 8-00 a.m. Dr. Mushtaq, M.O., R.H.C., Jatoi, conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Mst. Farhat Mai deceased and found the following injuries on it:--- (1) An abrasion 1 x 1 c.m. On the left cheek. (2) An abrasion 1 x 1 c.m. On the nose. (3) An abrasion 1 x 1/2 c.m. On the right side of the forehead. (4) Multiple abrasions on both knee-joints. (5) The neck was swollen and skin peeled off on the neck. Maggots were present on the neck and the upper part of the chest. (6) The anus was swollen. There were multiple lacerations on the rectum. The recto-vaginal pouch was ruptured resulting in single opening. {{BLUR}} In the OplAtrot(IlieldVetOt,IMsti.;Tarhat,Moi had been subjected to "act of sodomY".11,Aryihtflutet !Tippet part ttfi tiiithea Ai re, sent'tb Iiistopathologist for detection of Itiolil Itioniktilbthihingi,iheart, stomach contents faecal, matter and iwtilisititaffejseitt to the ',Chemical Examinee:,?Tte opinion rega ing cause f death was deferred till the reports of the Chemical In..; , ,air oh, ..) oDzyi :-... a rimer a opatli st., On receipt of their reports the doctor Opined 1.-0; thinly No's tie to of sutures) . And In 14(1.5' '(otelioti4iii )0016:)eu 0 us 1. i-, injury onffiVoIctilimer wee IA daYfkidtfielbnt t6'ci deasiik4he nrdiii* onr 'Li DJ" Vr: ") 5p. ,.,1, - I , p i, ..; , course cit nature. Rd; fur driiiiinedthat death could also octiii due to shoot 'ail t eding resulting rorn he injury No.6. As per Chemical Examineri 'Jr lo v., ',..L...J '.....m. Injury r '':-...,ii f , ,13 report he anal swabs were stained with'keinen. , , 3f11 report 33nt;11.;:,- ,, :AO gr :,mq Intil p.'..Nsw.Linoa inLikqqi; -r:: 72 "loMie-liielittvettliationithe appellant was sent up toiliarhisdriaLli3q(pl c zi ybod bc:',,b Ai "io yy;:,:- 1 :,:i: :': L-,,,Gi ,- . , , ,,,11 noie?Olrro:., 14i:;ibili
---
## Page 3
..1rIf 811')1 riThgAcisoP044kgct , Rii4enCR of the murdr4!,AP41-thcgf9CffA'9?;) order4pnprqyFrrikiisigg- t Ilasrslielik on ithe following ,pfeses.t}ignci6iunIRt evidrdIRPriow y,-;d1 !Lig aril to ioviJr,i...)1 gaffxf oun;:i.Xi nozianinoa :34-1,1 f;crx '(i)I'liakii iiinWidence furn' hil:1*Itrail4iiiiiiiiiiiiitV.`a tielkiditar ciiii4se bas 2K.Hi ' iiis iv/ ,,,.'...Duci g?..C3 E ni inf;;T)lfil fon zi noininw ic.1..,..,:,1. aril ni now! ,: . ''., .:.In. To 7,)n.)!,i in ir,.i.N1 12-1,-I9.K., -,)11t prti,4 ..1,r1n 'I'm: r:t okii-(1)v.,,Froctra-judicial confession .Allegedly made by the appellant before Muhammad Iqbal P.W.9 and Muhammad Ramzan P.W.10. Irm 43)- aiRceoverref the deadel)04y of. Mst.Ftititat,34411-4.Cceased at the obizz bAnstanceihf the appellantcaemfi miciiiit,lo =13.);;17.J.Icril ty.Inuino.. 41;11 .,_ (4) Recovery of blood-stained Chaddar from the person of the appellant 3(11 y,d at the time of his,arrest; and 7.1:-.)v 2vsii t,V1 .1f . 61,-2 )1,,... t. .. - , -: , :1161 loz,nuo3 bt-,,,nic,:,)1 int,;(5),,Medical evidence. ,,r, lc , , :, , .. , , , r7. 70c104 the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the Ehtion's.allegatibiliatilitithiMi When asked why thiS case against him hi iiikdebthe fillidwifig*Itteitietitqi- 'It 1(,i1.,:: ,ii 3 0 - ' Wlie;i!Irti ni btivvo:K.:1. Al: At f,11, ;Ai lo ,:,Lbor* ,,i :idf lo ,53nLi7,111prelist.,pafty5facboo, in,the village. I belongt9fiche People's Party odi 161 jyfilik3Iteeontplinant,peftly belongs to the Muslingfea,gtiehMt.N)del 5brita u- iglio4111,fM.NAL. As the. Leader of Muslim LeaguelAwlyAl101gad r=ssmz.Prepresents hinkin the area, and due to the pressure of-,ANhipidAtid ;AI of ;Mr., Abdul Qayyum, M.N.A. [have been falsely roped ihithilsc4sA0 b=jaubonfernainedick the villageithropiiout and I was with the search partgA bOjr,la ,...)11.94).4.991,and the dead: body_ of the deceased. Mst. Farhat Mai wfi ni ljecoyesekby- the sew* ;party. The -police interrogated flour othaF `gfthicl , youggithenog the village-including,nne of theirektive,s of ManzooF 5rii of , Hussale complainant, who is son of his sister-in-law, butlactef taking Vise C . Bribe; they were let off. The Investigating Officer acted undet. Pressure of the above said Allah Dad and Abdul Qayyum and with mala fide {{BLUR}} ' intention has involved me in this case. The Abadi of Chak consists of 200 houses, there are about 300 unmarried young men. Had I made any confession, I would have made it before any Magistrate. The recovery of blood-stained Chaddar has been planted on me." 10. After examining the evidence on the record, the learned trial Judge did not rely on the testimony of Akhtar Hussain, P.W.7 and also discarded the evidence relating to recovery of blood-stained Chaddar from the person of the appellant. However, relying on the remaining evidence, he convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. On the basis of certain admissions made by Dilawar Hussain P.W.6, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that prosecution version regarding the appearance of the appellant before Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ramzan, P.Ws. For extrajudicial confession and thereafter leading to the recovery of the dead body is a mere concoction. He submitted that there was absolutely no occasion for the appellant to have gone to Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ramzan to make the confessison because being relatives of the girl they were likely to react more sharply than the other villagers. It is further contended that extrajudicial confession is not relevant in a case punishable with death as Qisas and in any case being the weakest type of evidence it cannot be relied upon in the absence of strong corroboration from an independent and unimpeachable source. ' The learned State counsel while supporting the impugned judgment has contended that evidence of Akhtar Hussain, P.W.7 has been brushed aside by the trial Court without assigning any cogent reason. 11. We have very carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties in the light of evidence available on the record. In cross-examination Dilawar P.W. Stated that after
---
## Page 4
telling the complainant that his daughter was seen in the company of the accused he went to Alipur from where he returned after an hour; the people were then searching the missing girl; the police came to the spot in the evening and he made his statement before the police officer; the dead body of the girl was recovered in the evening when the police arrived and that it was recovered at the instance of the accused. On the basis of the above admissions the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution version that the appellant made extra- judicial confession before Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ramzan, P.Ws on the next day and thereafter, while in police custody, led to the recovery of the dead body on that day, was false. Dilawar P.W. Was produced by the prosecution as a witness of last seen. In examination-in-chief he stated that he and Akhtar Hussain P.W. Had seen Mst. Farhat Mai deceased in the company of the appellant who, on their inquiry, told them that he was taking her to her father who was moulding bricks. He was neither a witness to the arrest of the accused nor to the recovery of the dead body. He appears to have made obliging concessions in cross-examination in order to favour the accused, therefore, much importance cannot be attached to his above statement. 12. The evidence of Akhtar P.W. Was discarded on the ground that in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. He had narrated a story "as told by Dilawar and he has introduced the fact of purchase of milk at the trial. It appears that he has purposely made this statement to damage the prosecution". It was further observed that a witness "who relates one thing to the police and the other at the trial is not trustworthy". We have noted that there is nothing in the statement of this witness to show that he had stated "one thing before the police and other at the trial". Nothing was brought on the record by confronting him with his statement before police to show that he had stated differently therein. In examination-in-chief he stated that he and Dilawar were returning to the village when they saw Mst. Farhat Mai in the company of the appellant. He further stated that he had milk with him. In cross-examination he stated that he was coming to the Basti after purchasing the milk. This minor omission in the police statement could hardly constitute a ground for rejecting his evidence in toto. He is an independent and disinterested witness having absolutely no motive to falsely implicate the accused in a heinous crime like murder and his evidence can safely be relied upon. 13. The evidence regarding extra-judicial confession was furnished by Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ramzan, P.Ws. Who too had no axe to grind against the appellant. The prosecution is not obliged to show why the accused chose relatives of the victim for making the confession and the same cannot be thrown away if it is otherwise established that it was voluntary and true. The appellant made the confession before them on 20-9-1991 wherein he stated that he had strangulated the unfortunate girl after subjecting her to his unnatural lust. The victim being a girl, the witnesses could not have known whether she was raped or subjected to sodomy unless they were so informed. The post-mortem examination conducted on the next day of making of confession revealed that the unfortunate little girl had been subjected to sodomy and in that view of the matter their evidence finds substantial corroboration from the medical evidence. The recovery of dead body at the instance of the appellant from a cotton field also lends material support to the prosecution case. 13. We agree with the learned counsel that extra-judicial confession is no evidence in a case punishable with death as Qisas. However, in view of the nature of evidence produced by the prosecution and relied upon by the trial Court, it is evident that the appellant was punished with death as Tazir and not as Qisas although it was specifically not so stated in the impugned judgment. The argument so far as this case is concerned is, therefore, misconceived. The plea of the appellant that he was falsely implicated as he belonged to a certain political party has no substance. There is nothing on the record to show that he had contested the election against the local M.N.A. Or had
---
## Page 5
{{BLUR}} 34-Q414Y-Peview49pft '.` '',` ' j'',It ''.g.': 4- . ''' 411:A5i/fa aid bar 1..4)-nitit Civil Appeal No.163 of 1988 vd bodzimul acw noiaawnoc, '.,...s., o 14 ii o.Tnebive 311T .L1 01 on on kid ooi of1wT717RN---NTC,Ntbrin iiidpI bninettralutil di \FAR woila of btAldo ion ai noinergus - -,ciT .Tni.Iilogyi 3111 ianirgs builg 3rn1;2 3c11 btu noiaa.-,:inoa ot-li itni-L. It-i rr i.- '-', 3 -lo 1igktkW l 141 3Zor3 katrior bar vicinulov aim PlAPLAK,. e a I r,1A.,s lSifrsig, nwouli od ionnuo 3d"i3131FWjd4)kah3ddrilF4519$ 4 ailielfiikri411-41-6isibilk1s14k9101tMt3911)a :xi) 1).)niftitiamia bfirl 311 iiirli inteia nworpl own{ 1011 ULM') a3?..!:,;ilj'W Jiil iiifliicickiViiV 3dT .12tid Iniuiranu .b.5miolni 02 313W yodi axi9PAPP551.1uferitiPurc6 kInc1 au/ :Ida -iwiloiriw lo griblEm lo yr.!), 1= iisuitArgmAry44g14fL.rthAppiellant riLltiont-largi ',AT . oi boboidua nood kid hi-4 oliiii olutimoind 3111 RAI b3n3v31 noi?..Aolno Iniineiadua akin 33n3biv ii:in.Li 13)Ygf4u.Stii lo woiv ir(1i ni kw vjnoboa. :..Ali 16 ybod bLota lo -tivo;i3dtTuiviiiiiitliitawanailltmoll nolic- rociolico 341 01 110qque, kil3I11rt176- ,,,.Nrrim.110)10-) 6 figfiTifl6 .Ogqr 3(11 to 5311E186i (From the order of Lahore High Court, Multan;-Bench,dated 44- 11947.gRItssicilj*Lil,"-41/NPRgifurliarrist)i ..Jiii ifilW 33186 .,)111 .Li Aiiiitili Nom' feiland*/ of 141AideeidedWelOthdanaar34 1291rizkr,r3 rit r4 60,,711 Lx t1!` fit% ,fly inixiao-ig ...,:il .0 b...)Dubolg 33nif..Li1v3 10 elutrin 1c4a). PilniabfPrii411111004041APPIr Tnelloqrpi orb icrli ful)ivo 2i ii duo') .Fr-LVtakelaiiiiiiiaimirldi' .' o2(i947411rOsgsw_6iiiitrotitgiolidiip Was :).1ve.:,DnoJaun aldF.Iiiellit 6fireibuiegiadikaliaitillitodfiiireStablisig granted to examine the bAlight d iniauptipni kkgr#Opeg oif whapirmilitvayelymprathunder S.7, oantjileThrb- aoptiOttOrettiliWybe49bka on 2m1 canili 1LDifiloq hitifioo I.; (Li kid 10 .A.Fei,tif ficsio! 3111 feriir;;T:; noiholo or!) .b33231rro3 kid nrf 111111 woli.7-: {{BLUR}} {{BLUR}} (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)d 10 1)13A noihirils-rm dairniq 240165-0-Pio0i..Sibntigit..31-1. *ab PitcdniptioitiAel,14913iguigleditialt-to Itglot6stsisigiktsaiiiiihiumt.6.., ,1 , :1-WW 3iii .10 ?.3iiiabhuod :.-Idi ot gnibbn nndiu km avysl aril to viiiidimiqqs od) oi binxr. Diiw nwo au 'to yfilnobi tr)dhildahribile*PilelPokOlaigid48-13kti TflUpDf; CA a3Ltio 11 isfi1 -Y...13ste.6 ni fiqqttk)rea"Cixt3iii4oilfi Tbe?-igiipkie ) WilIff Cid s JP ori ISMiiilial A fisaiTie 1 f pialii5 ftwial5 olgypilei. Pat '-''''ui th""4 ;Nan tie , !Ilegilrti)-eillOW. Up 6 -if; f.Uil -)1 w oi liwoi odi nt '{ nobnogobni [P.4071 e I. ^-- .4j ' hr.v ..,a bo,),.pL,1,4 .. (0 puNab _I Iii iw,mini...rliiM ,v iistriAA sovlog bnfi ',.-Q8 ale-1 ----S.7---If there is a sub-division of the town then the custom of pre-emption must be proved to exist in that sub-diviiiiititt hid tdikt.t.hleffrEri duigiel (1) di;t'd 118 L!:).L; .1..1-i...,dt. Lo. i:Y.Zio-orifti tlyi boi a oi ig rn 5- ici lo m o la uD- - - r 2- - (e) ninon rre- empuon -1:16(41 .Ri ,nniluM ni oiai) iiodE.1 orb 5biLit10 bovolq .. ,---S.7---Person who claims that a town is divided in sib-divisions has to prove f '' Thvb24yisH6'61 itethingtriabii6osVigt pii-eigOon law-- . t_ . Li..0,,, Divisur in'Yog artQ gtii&-figiyAkiaikeift4emsliamiNtlavitie,
---
## Page 6
s..5 of- rellattiiiiiiii4i.Ty.i4b1)ii;%62 bomfiA riMsiatis sin: 11110 OTfPgsfi lEfa ,F- trri7) no in5brioqa.:)-5T-Iol bioa-31-no-t.-06)ovbA 'IMdVat aht'naIiiildtikorkies461.4giii4312 ref. ":QE.Ofrr 1.6..-)qqA irthilfxNA (imzdA) bio!):-)54-no-31.6)ovbA t(OriiiNjibiM4iimptiewAct4b041913)ftovbik ,iieanA bfimilA J\AFRE !m)qqA fi.FD Ifribriore3R ----S.7---Fact that City has Mohallahs and Bazars and Lanes with specific names would not follow that they weievfecogthied sul:H:livigiuns for purposes of pre-emption law. Vie31,11CILii, 0' La. Rs ificnames but - .17J hAye. Mohallahs,B from th14 s got ipuow t are ret kisicns for A t Jl 10 1, I fila,Ur^ ;0 31111411 3. a. Ilaxit t pltio6id sf.h, (ikullintiegt `174 az5isnPtiol'say whe e a partic ar guar cep; lowu st%i4 r ,#,:tillt1-0,h13b* sub-division for purposes of 4iirelliti2diastOrtwilagliSt didithed in the Act but it isuottinfail cases synonym with MWah !Mid,: that the , tam implies a. Quarter of grkcINROYAARIP,WP and frebcfgaiseEandxliaekuptirtwitaltho steels gtiaaf*Pfitheiti*WhiPrOKIJAtiotil ,51.0 ifull in:lac/18 sologoiq Jina Io IxAgen. Inieb ifrAILP14001,"1"3914?).1.+14' R'll'il-T)t-Trialq ion ?SW noilcum-tyvi irtomuo kv l;oinein Eft afiW81E4410 ,0 dkM 1.13dw thilied&sf4kE4Prpliie being thaa.:tkere should be faiistitictitwaitudthin and eh-Arm:ter 'Whielvatakmit a*cogniaed e-afOtloti-taiwAicasiief the' name bfAvobirtoOls well known that triad (166'1 puiPose this Att. fitottelleflq6 .1/Ch :1361CW .131(1.1:73`t Eirf s;,,) {{BLUR}} (h) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)-- ----S.7---Any area added to the town by notification at a subsequent date adding to the boundaries of the town would be a sub-division having a distinct identity of its own with regard to the applicability of the laws and urban character that it comes to acquire by such inclusion---No presumption of extension of law of pre-emption to such added area---Existence of a custom in respect of such added area before the relevant date has to be proved independently in the town to which the area was added. [p. 408] H & I Mst. Maqsooda Begum v. Maulvi Abdul Haq and others PLD 1968 Lah. 897 and Pervez Akhtar v. Muhammad Arif PLD 1977 Lah. 394 ref. (i) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)-- ----S.7---Custom of pre-emption was proved in respect of Jhang and so was proved outside the Lahori Gate in Multan. [p. 408] J Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant (in Civil Appeal No.163 of 1988). Ahmed Raza Kasuri, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in Civil Appeal No.163 of 1988). Riaz Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant (in Civil Appeal No.392 of 1988). Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in Civil Appeal No.392 of 1988). Date of hearing: 23rd January 1991. JUDGMENT ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---Leave to appeal was granted in these two appeals and two others to examine the nature of evidence and proof required for establishing a right of pre-emption in respect of urban immovable property under section 7 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. 2. In Civil Appeal No.163/88 a house on Street No.11, Ward VII, Jhang City was the subject-matter of pre-emption claim. It was stated to be located in Mohallah Chunnoon Moriwala. The trial Court had
---
## Page 7
rejected the pre-emption claim in respect of this suit property on 5-11-1971 on the ground that the custom of pre-emption was not proved to be in existence in the locality of Mohallah Chunnoon Moriwala. On appeal, the District Judge reversed the finding holding that Mohallah Chunnoon Moriwala was in fact, as appeared from the evidence led at the trial, a part of Mohallah Sharifan where admittedly the custom of pre-emption was proved to exist before the enforcement of the Pre-emption Act, 1913. The High Court declined to interfere in revision considering the finding of fact to be sound and to be based on material on record. Hence, the vendee is before, us as the appellant and contending that Mohallah Chunnoon Moriwala was in fact a different Sub-Division of the Jhang Urban Area and the proof of custom in Mohallah Sharifan was not sufficient to allow the pre-emption claim of the respondent. 3. In Civil Appeal No.392/1988 the sale of urban immovable property had taken place and the property was located outside Lahori Gate in Multan City. The contest centred round the existence of the right of pre-emption in the locality prior to the enforcement of Pre-emption Act. All the three Courts held that such a right did exist in the locality and decreed the claim. The vendee is appellant before us and his submission is the same namely that in fact no custom of pre-emption. Existed in the locality. 4. Section 7 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 requiring interpretation is reproduced hereunder:-- "Subject to the provisions of section 5 a right of pre-emption shall exist in respect of urban immovable property in any town or sub-division of a town when a custom of pre-emption is proved to have been in existence in such town or sub-division at the time of the commencement of this Act, and not otherwise." Section 5 to which it is subordinate is not at the moment relevant for our I purposes. 5. The first proposition that emerges from the law requiring interpretation is that if there is a custom of pre-emption proved in respect of a C town then a sale of urban immovable property in that town will be liable to pre-emption. The next qualifying proposition also to be found in the enacted law is that if there is a sub-division of the town then the custom of pre-emption must be proved to exist in that sub-division of the town. For the purposes of pre-emption law the person who claims that a town is divided in sub-divisions has to prove that in fact sub-divisions exist in that town. Division of town into Mohallahs, Streets and Wards does not qualify as sub-division for the purposes of pre-emption law. This was made clear in Karim Ahmad v. Rahmat Elahi and others AIR 1946 Lah. 432 in the following words:- "A city may have Mohallahs and Bazars and lanes with specific names but from this fact it does not follow that they are recognised subdivisions for purposes of Pre-emption Law. It is a difficult matter in each case to say whether a particular quarter of the town should or should not be treated as a sub-division for purposes of Pre-emption Law. The word "sub-division" has not been defined in the Act but it has been held in several decisions of the Punjab Chief Court that it is not in all cases synonymous with a Mohallah and that the term subdivision implies a quarter of a town well known and recognised and does not mean the streets or lanes of the town." {{BLUR}} Tiret9iskinnriteAkit theakn,quAgmA-Mcilah. nctrActIREMITt7T3inoD rign4d144The tiPkel soinithinriniliVStructte, addl4SlitteiciihiehlnifAltfla recognised unit for Pre-emption Law. Because the name ant ftter 1411 is well known that fact does not necessarily 41#qtta:subr4iyision for nstliati gtAteJ111.PRK.P.f the A51"bai6aoi ovsgalq *di bit6tiq naiia bd Oh fllifleWtVany area addediehetoWniiraihkifircatten'at a kdifingWrilie boundarieS -of IfteloWn would leetlfaliiIY13e a sub-diviSibiiiniiiinei distiklidetitity of its oi+it4iltfil -regard to the apPlichbilltfof the laWsdiiirbaii eliartktieig"thit it conies-wtifi'ae4itifh 'bY eTliefe3Orit'te no presumption of extension of the pre-enriPtilAnlativ -ad a as has…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.