2003 PLP 903 (SCMR)
QASIM ALI and others — Petitioners Versus AKBAR ALI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 903 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bltagivandas and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | QASIM ALI and others — Petitioners Versus AKBAR ALI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation. 1959 [M.L.R. 64] |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 903 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation. 1959 [M.L.R. 64] as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 903 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bltagivandas and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 903 (SCMR) (QASIM ALI and others — Petitioners Versus AKBAR ALI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Aamir Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Sardar Ali Shah Bukhari, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th June, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the ,judgment, dated 2-3-1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, Multan Bench. Multan in Regular First Appeal No. 634 of 1979).
Paras. 4 & 27
West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.45
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Sale of land in contravention of West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 MLR 64)
Rejection of sale mutation-=-Civil Court, jurisdiction of
Powers of Federal Land Commission
Plaintiff assailed the sale on the ground that the same was in contravention of M.L.R. 64, and all the Courts below found the sale void ab-initio
Contention of the defendants was that irrespective of the fact whether the sale transaction was valid and binding qua the parties to the conveyance deed and it was for the Federal Land Commission or the Authorities constituted under M.L.R. 64, to take exception to the validity or otherwise of the sale
Defendants further contended that the jurisdiction of Civil Court was expressly hared thus the Courts below including the High Court suffered from misconception of law by taking cognizance of the issue and deciding the nature of sale transaction
Courts below had exercised their jurisdiction contrary to the provisions of law
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to examine the aforesaid question of law. [p. 0041 A Mst. Raj Bibi v. Additional Chief Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore PLD 1975 Lah. 408: Nasir Ahmad Khan v. Mst. Ismat Jehan Begum 1968 SCMR 667 and Mst. Zohran Khatoon v. Member. Federa! Land Commission 1985 SCMR 312 ref.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Petitioners claim leave to appeal against Lahore High Court judgment, dated 2-3-1999 in R.S.A. No.634 of 1979 dismissing petitioners' appeal against concurrent findings of fact in a suit for No. 1. 2 Facts of the case succinctly stated appear to be that through a registered sale-deed Exh.P-1 dated 16-6-1970 petitioners Nos. l to 7 sold 1746 Kanals, 17 Marlas of land out of their total holding comprising of 1792 Kanals, 10 Marlas in favour of respondent No. i . the petitioners and respondents Nos.21 to
26. On the basis of aforesaid sale transaction mutation Exh.P-2 was entered in the Revenue Record but the sale being apparently in violation of Martial Law Regulation No.64, it was rejected. Respondent No. l as one of the veadees brought. a suit for permanent injunction to have the sale deed annulled. There were two sets of defendants in the suit one who admitted the claim of respondent No. l and the other comprising of vendors who contested the claim. Contesting defendants, though admitted transaction of sale through registered conveyance deed, nevertheless, contended that the vendees were bound by the transaction which was valid inter se. Certain preliminary objections were raised which were reflected in the issues settled by the trial Court. On conclusion of the trial, trial Court held that the sale being in contravention of the MLR-64 was void ab initio. The findings of fact were upheld in the First Appeal by District Judge, &zaffargarh. On its part High Court also upheld the findings in R.S.. which have been impugned in this petition.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record. Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that irrespective of the fact whether the sale transaction was effected in contravention of MLR-64 the transaction was valid and binding qua the parties to the conveyance deed and it was for the Federal Land Commission or the authorities constituted under MLR-64 to take an exception to the validity or otherwise of the sale. In any event jurisdiction of the Civil Court was expressly barred thus the Courts below including the High Court suffered from misconception of law by taking cognizance of the issue and deciding the nature of the sale transaction. We may refer to the cases reported as Mst. Raj Bibi v. Additional Chief Commissioner. Punjab, Lahore (PLD 1975 Lahore 408), Nasir Ahmad Khan v. Mst. Ismat Jehan Begum (!968 SCMR 667) and Mst. Zohran Khatoon v. Member, Federal Land Commission (1985 SCMR 312) in which this question has been exhaustively dealt with by the superior Courts. This view has been followed in cases subsequently decided by this Court.
4. Question of law thus raised needs examination by this Court as, prima facie, it appears that the Courts below exercised their jurisdiction contrary to the provisions of law and the judgments of this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted, inter alia, to examine the aforesaid question of law. Q. M. H./Q-11/S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.