1994 PLP 541 (SCMR)
ALTAF HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 541 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Fazal Ilahi Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | ALTAF HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R.115)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 541 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R.115)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 541 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Fazal Ilahi Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 541 (SCMR) (ALTAF HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Ahmed Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- M. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th November, 1993.
- 7. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that, learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, relied on Malhi Khan v. Member, Board of Revenue (PLD 1991 SC 824) to hold that the right of pre‑emption conferred upon the pre‑emptor under MLR 115 could not be taken away by notification issued under section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913, but in Manghta Khan and others v. Mst. Hamida Begum and others (PLD 1981 SC 51) and Muhammad Khan v. Abdul Khaliq Khan (PLD 1981 SC 155), a contrary view has been taken by the Supreme Court. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 20‑6‑1993, in W.P. 363/1984). ‑‑‑‑Para. 25‑‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S. 8(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Sales in favour of Tarbela Dam affectees exempted from pre‑emption under notification dated 18‑10‑1978 issued under S. 8(2), Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether right of pre‑emption conferred upon tenants under M.L.R. 115, could not be taken away by notification under S. 8(2), Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913. Malhi Khan v. Member, Board of Revenue PLD 1991 SC 824; Manghta Khan and others v. Mst. Hamida Begum and others PLD 1981 SC 51 and Muhammad Khan v. Abdul Khaliq Khan PLD 1981 SC 155 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J: ‑‑Altaf Hussain and another, petitioners herein, seek leave to appeal against judgment dated 20-6‑1993 of the Lahore High Court, (Rawalpindi Bench) passed in Writ Petition No.363 of 1984.
2. On 4‑6‑1979, the petitioners purchased the land in dispute measuring 4 Kanals and 16 Marlas situate in village Kudlathi, Tehsil and District Attock. The respondent No.l pre‑empted the sale on the ground that he was tenant and had superior right of pre‑emption.
3. The petitioners contested the suit and pleaded that they were displaced persons on account of the construction of Tarbela Dam and sales in their favour were exempted from pre‑emption under notification dated 18‑10‑1978, issued under section 8(2) of the Pre‑emption Act, 1913.
4. The suit was dismissed by the Collector on 17‑7‑1982, but decreed in appeal on 20‑9‑1982, by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi.
5. On revision filed by the petitioners, the suit was again dismissed on 28‑3‑1984, by the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, on the ground that sale in favour of the petitioners who are displaced persons due to construction of Tarbela Dam was exempted.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Member, Board of Revenue, the respondent No.l filed Constitutional petition in the High Court which was allowed vide impugned judgment passed on 20‑6‑1993. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
7. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that, learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, relied on Malhi Khan v. Member, Board of Revenue (PLD 1991 SC 824) to hold that the right of pre‑emption conferred upon the pre‑emptor under MLR 115 could not be taken away by notification issued under section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913, but in Manghta Khan and others v. Mst. Hamida Begum and others (PLD 1981 SC 51) and Muhammad Khan v. Abdul Khaliq Khan (PLD 1981 SC 155), a contrary view has been taken by the Supreme Court. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners.
8. As a short point is involved for determination in this appeal, it shall be expeditiously completed and fixed for hearing at an early date. AA./A‑1081/S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.