SEWA SINGH Vs. GHUMAND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Sangrur, affirming a judgment and decree of the Court of first instance dismissing the appellants' suit for possession by pre-emption of the agricultural land in dispute.

(2.) The only point raised before me on behalf of the appellants is that the Courts below are wrong in declining to the plaintiff-appellants relief by way of pre-emption on the sole ground that the land which is a subject-matter of the pre-emption suit has after the sale been subjected to consolidation proceedings and the vendee has in lieu of the land purchased got in consolidation proceedings some other land. According to the learned counsel, both the Courts below have been influenced by the considerations which have nothing to do with the point in dispute. The Courts below, it may be pointed out, have concentrated their attention to Sections 24 and 25 of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act No. 5 of 2007 Bk. and have come to the conclusion that a right of pre-emption is not a right in the land within the contemplation of Section 24 and is not an encumbrance on the land within the meaning of Section 25. Shri Gandhi submits that these two sections do not suggest that merely because the land sold has been subjected to consolidation of holdings, the pre-emptor who had a right to a preferential sale in his favour loses the right of substitution in place of the vendee on the date of the sale. This right, according to the counsel, has to be enforced and whatever land has been substituted in place of the land which the plaintiffs claim to purchase under the law of pre-emption, would fall to their share. According to the argument, the rule of substitution applicable to the claim of pre-emption should ordinarily extend to the circumstances like the present.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, my attention has not been drawn to any direct decision which would cover a case like the present and deprive the plaintiff-pre-emptors of their right to pre-empt the sale in question merely because of subsequent consolidation proceedings. Indeed the respondents' learned counsel has not seriously contested the contention that by virtue of the provisions of the Pepsu (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 2007 Bk., the pre-emptor is entitled in exercise of his right of pre-emption to secure a decree against the land obtained by the vendee in consideration proceedings in exchange for the land which was the subject-matter of the sale sought to be pre-empted.