1980 PLP 270 (SCMR)
HABIB RASOOL AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Nawabzada IHSANULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS ‑Respondents
| Citation | 1980 PLP 270 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 M. L. R. 115‑‑ |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HABIB RASOOL AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Nawabzada IHSANULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS ‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M. L. R. 115]‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 270 (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 1980 PLP 270 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 M. L. R. 115‑‑ bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 270 (SCMR) (HABIB RASOOL AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Nawabzada IHSANULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS ‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Younas Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 30th September, 1979.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 22‑3‑1978 of the Peshawar High Court at Peshawar in Writ Petition No. 20/76). ‑‑‑‑ Para. 8‑Concession qua retaining additional area on ground of ownership of tractor‑Tractor established to have been purchased before target date‑Fact of registration of tractor in name of another person‑Held, not by itself enough to hold that land‑owner con cerned was not owner of tractor. Member, Federal Land Commission v. Sardar Muhammad Ashraf Khan and another 1978 S C M R 153 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑The acceptance by the Peshawar High Court of a Constitutional petition filed by a land‑owner seeking concession qua retaining additional area on the ground of ownership of a tractor under para. 8 of Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972 has been called into question through this petition for special leave to appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the respondent had purchased the tractor on 25th February, 1971 and only part payment was made at the time of initial transaction. The remaining amount was paid on 28th of January, 1972. Thus as stated the transaction not having been completed before the 20th December, 1971 the respondent could not be treated as "owner" of the tractor. The learned counsel has also argued that the tractor at the relevant time was not "registered" under the Motor Vehicles Act in the name of the respondent. Therefore, he would not get any benefit under para. 8 of Martial Law Regulation 115, on account of the aforementioned purchase. The learned counsel has during the arguments in fairness to the respondent, admitted that at the initial transaction (in February, 1971) it was agreed between the seller and the purchaser that the transaction of sale was complete and that the balance price would be recoverable as a debt. The delivery of the tractor to the purchaser is not denied. In the circum stances of the case, as held by the High Court, the tractor was purchased by the respondent before the target date. There is no force in the first argument of the learned counsel. The registration of the tractor in the name of another person by itself, as held by this Court in Member, Federal Land Commission v. Sardar Muhammad Ashraf Khan and another (1978 S C M R 153) cited by the learned counsel, is not enough to hold that the respondent was not the owner thereof. There is no force in the second contention either. This petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.