1993 PLP 1318 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus NAWAB ALI ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1318 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus NAWAB ALI ‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1318 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1318 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1318 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus NAWAB ALI ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- S.M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th October, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 1‑3‑1986 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.R. No.798‑D of 1984). (a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Pre‑emptor claiming right of pre‑emption on the ground of being a land owner in the estate, but same had been acquired by the Government for a residential scheme‑‑‑Out of holdings of pre‑emptor, five Marlas of land was, however, left with him and on that basis he claimed right of pre‑emption ‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the fraction of land measuring five marlas adjacent to the housing scheme did not entitle pre‑emptor to be an owner of estate so as to have right of pre‑emption. Chint Ram v. Harbhagat Singh AIR 1940 Lah. 344 and Salehon Muhammad v. Shera 1977 SCMR 297 ref. (b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.15‑‑‑Right of pre‑emption, on basis of pre‑emptor being owner of a fraction of land in estate, whether vested in him ‑‑‑Pre‑emptor was shown in record‑of‑rights as owner in the estate paying the land revenue and was thus, entitled to exercise his right of pre‑emption over the land in question which was within the estate of which pre‑emptor was the owner, though of a small fraction of same. Chint Ram v. Harbhagat Singh AIR 1940 Lah. 344 ref.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J: ‑‑The facts, which form the background to this appeal, are succinctly stated in the order granting leave to appeal which is, accordingly, reproduced below: "Petitioners purchased land measuring 13 Kanals 10 Marlas situated in Chak No.46 of N.B. Tehsil and District Sargodha through a registered sale‑deed dated 30‑7‑1978. The respondent's suit for pre‑emption has been decreed throughout. The petitioners seek leave to appeal. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent claimed the right of pre‑emption on the ground of being a land owner in the estate, .but his land had been acquired by the Government for a residential scheme. He, therefore, ceased to possess the right of pre‑emption. Learned counsel submitted that it has been found that out of holding of the respondent measuring 25 Kanals 5 Marlas, 25 Kanals have been acquired for the housing scheme. That still leaves him with 5 Marlas of land. It is on this basis that he was held to have the right. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that fraction of land measuring 5 Marlas adjacent to the housing scheme does not entitle the respondent to be an owner of the estate so as to have right of pre‑emption. He places reliance on Chint Ram v. Harbhagat Singh AIR 1940 Lah. 344 and Salehon Muhammad v. Shera 1977 SCMR 297." Leave was granted to consider this contention. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The record chows that in the relevant record of rights (Jamabandi), the respondent is shown as owner in the estate and was paying land revenue. The decisions on which reliance is placed relate to the land for which land revenue was not being paid. Thus in. Chint Ram v. Harbhagat Singh AIR 1940 Lah. 344 the appellant Chint Ram owned a small plot of land which was unassessed to revenue and uncultivated except to a trifling extent and clearly destined to be a building site. Hence, he could not be regarded as one of the "owners of the estate". The factual situation in the other case, on which reliance is placed, namely the case of Salehon Muhammad and another v. Khan Muhammad and others 1977 SCMR 297 is in essence, the same. No good ground for interference with the orders of the Courts below, therefore, is made out. Dismissed. No costs. AA./M‑1733/S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? Appeal dismissed.