LAHORE: The four-month deadline to file a pre-emption suit over land sold through a mutation starts running on the day the mutation is attested, not on the day the would-be buyer discovers the sale, the Lahore High Court has ruled, even where the revenue officer never displayed the public notice the law requires.
Justice Muzamil Akhtar Shabir made the finding while dismissing a writ petition (W.P. No. 13547 of 2026) filed by Samina Siddique against Abdul Ghaffar Razzaq and two others.
According to the judgment, the respondent bought land in Faisalabad district through two sale mutations, No. 2871 and No. 2872, both dated November 21, 2024. Each covered a separate portion measuring 31 kanals, 2 marlas and 136 square feet, valued at Rs1,93,13,000, taking the total sale consideration to Rs3,86,26,000.
The petitioner claimed the purchase was made surreptitiously and that the revenue officer never affixed the notice of attestation. She said she learned of the sale on May 16, 2025 at 10am while at the land, made Talb-i-Muwathibat on the spot and sent Talb-i-Ishhad notices by registered post the next day. Her suit was filed on June 24, 2025, and she deposited Zar-e-Soim (one-third of the price) of Rs1,28,75,333 in the treasury on October 16, 2025.
The trial court had treated limitation as a mixed question of law and fact to be decided after evidence. On revision, however, an Additional District Judge in Faisalabad, through an order dated January 27, 2026, dismissed the suit outright, holding it time-barred and also faulting the late deposit of Zar-e-Soim.
Section 30 of the Act sets four months from four possible starting points such as registration of a sale deed, attestation of a mutation, the buyer taking physical possession, or, only if none of those applies, the pre-emptor’s knowledge. Because this sale was made through mutation, the court held that clause (b) applied and the clock started on November 21, 2024, running out on March 21, 2025.
The court described Section 30 as self-executing and said the knowledge-based clause is a residual provision that cannot be invoked where an earlier clause covers the sale. It relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings, which treat the notice requirement in Section 31 as independent of the limitation period.
Rather than dismissing Section 31 as meaningless, the judgment explains its role. The officer attesting a mutation must display notice within two weeks, for example at a mosque entrance and another public place in the village, so that people entitled to pre-empt learn of the sale and can make their talabs in time. Knowledge governs when Talb-i-Muwathibat must be made, the court said, but it does not extend the deadline for the suit itself.
The court added a practical warning such as a pre-emptor who learns of a sale on the last permissible day must make all three demands — Talb-i-Muwathibat, Talb-i-Ishhad and Talb-i-Khusumat, the filing of the suit — on that same day.
The judgment notes that a pre-emptor who discovers a sale only after the deadline is not left without any remedy. Under Order VII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint must set out the grounds for claiming exemption from limitation, such as concealment through fraud under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The court cited Muhammad Ilyas v. Muhammad Bashir (PLD 2006 Lahore 365) on this point.
In this case, the court found that no such ground had been pleaded. It also noted that, after making Talb-i-Ishhad on May 17, the petitioner waited until June 24 to file suit without explaining the delay. Relying on Jahana v. Sher Muhammad (PLD 1961 Lahore 1042), it said mere concealment of a sale does not amount to fraud unless an intention to deceive is shown.
Having held the suit time-barred, the court declined to decide the Zar-e-Soim question, saying the answer would not change the outcome. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Leave a Reply