1988 PLP 23 (SCMR)
MAUJ KHAN — Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 23 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MAUJ KHAN — Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 23 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 23 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 23 (SCMR) (MAUJ KHAN — Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M.Zamir Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Muhammad Mohsin Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1987.
- 4. Mr.S.M. Zamir Zaidi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the deletion of the petitioner from the proceedings was without any authority, could not be accomplished in constitutional petition and his claim has been unjustifiably and without authority defeated thereby.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 13-5-1987 passed in W.P. 1884/86).
S. 21--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Constitutional petition, its scope--Addition or deletion of a party--Validity of joint suit for pre-emption--Only part of land sold in joint tenancy of pre-emptor-High Court in constitutional petition deleting name of petitioner along with his claim while allowing that of his joint pre-emptor- -Order impugned--Plea raised that deletion of petitioner from proceedings was without any authority, could not be accomplished in constitutional petition and petitioner's claim had been unjustifiably and without authority defeated thereby--Leave to appeal granted to consider question whether summary procedure of deletion of a party, abandonment of a part of relief and grant of relief to one of joint pre-emptor should have been adopted in constitutional jurisdiction where question of addition or deletion of a party could have a bearing on the right of pre-emption itself involving principle of sinker as well and all aspects of it should have been first examined by Courts having jurisdiction in matter after proper application and reply thereto.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- Mauj Khan, the petitioner, a joint pre-emptor, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 13-5-1987 in a constitutional petition whereby his claim was deleted and that of his joint pre-emptor, respondent No.6 was allowed to prevail.
2. Land measuring 69 kanals was sold by registered sale-deed on 7-2-1974 in favour of Jewan Khan, respondent No.4. The petitioner and Rehman Khan, respondent No.6, his brother, filed a joint suit for pre-emption. They claimed to be the tenants of the land sold. The Assistant Commissioner decreed this suit. An appeal was preferred to the Additional Commissioner which was dismissed. In revision, the Board of Revenue interfered because it found that only one Khasra No.467 was in the joint tenancy of the pre-emptors, all others being in individual tenancy of one or the other and not both. Hence a decree for only three Kanals was allowed to stand and the rest of the claim was dismissed.
3. A constitutional petition was then filed by the two pre-emptors. The factual position was, it appears, conceded. The High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the learned counsel representing the pre-emptors to delete the name of Mauj Khan petitioner along with his claim to that part of the land sold which was in his tenancy and also in his absence declined to decree the claim in respect of one Khasra number which was jointly held by the two and instead allowed the claim of Rehman Khan in respect of the property shown in his individual tenancy.
4. Mr.S.M. Zamir Zaidi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the deletion of the petitioner from the proceedings was without any authority, could not be accomplished in constitutional petition and his claim has been unjustifiably and without authority defeated thereby.
5. It appears that while judicially reviewing the decision of the Member Board of Revenue in exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction, the High Court found no legal or factual fault with it. Nevertheless it allowed in a somewhat summary fashion deletion of a party, abandonment of a part of the relief and proceeded to grant relief to one of the joint pre-emptors. The only question which requires authoritative pronouncement is whether such a procedure should have been adopted in the constitutional jurisdiction where the question of addition of a party or deletion of a party could have a bearing on the right of pre-emption itself involving the principle of sinker as well and all aspects of it should have been first examined by the Courts having jurisdiction in the matter after proper application and reply thereto. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted to examine this aspect of the case.
6. Security in the sum of Rs.2,500.
7. Status quo with regard to possession. M.I./M-206/S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted