1989 PLP 663 (SCMR)
GUL HASHIM — Petitioner Versus NOOR QADIR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 663 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | GUL HASHIM — Petitioner Versus NOOR QADIR and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | North-West Frontier Province Tenancy Act (XRV of 1950) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 663 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: North-West Frontier Province Tenancy Act (XRV of 1950) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 663 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 663 (SCMR) (GUL HASHIM — Petitioner Versus NOOR QADIR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Hisamuddin, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 29th November, 1988
- Mian Hisamuddin, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 20-6-88 of the Peshawar High Court , Peshawar in writ petition No.158 of 1988). --S.24--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Suit against tenant for recovery of Batai and ejectment--Suit decreed by Revenue Court--Appeal, revision and Constitutional petition dismissed--Order impugned--Plea of petitioner was that suit of respondent was decreed on the assumption that Bata was to be paid at the rate of 50% of the produce which in law could not be claimed more than 40% of the produce and that he had also made improvements--Leave to appeal was refused because after calculating amount of Batai at the rate of 40% of produce and giving him credit for costs of improvements, he was still a defaulter. Respondent No.1 in Person.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was cultivating land under respondent No.1 in village Sher Garh of Tehsil Mardan. Respondent No.1 filed a suit against the petitioner in the Court of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade at Mardan for recovery of batai and ejectment. The suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector and his it, judgment was upheld in appeal by the Collector. The petitioner's revision petition was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Peshawar Division. He then filed writ petition in the High Court but that too was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that the suit of respondent No.1 has been decreed by the Revenue authorities on the assumption that the batai was to be paid at the rate of 50% of the produce whereas under the law the landlord could not claim batai at a rate higher than 40% of the produce. It is also stated that the petitioner had made improvements in the land and that he was entitled to deduct the costs of improvements from the amount of batai payable to the landlord.
3. We find that even after calculating, the amount of batai at the rate of 40% of die produce and giving the petitioner credit for the, costs of improvements, he is still a defaulter. That being so, this is not a fit case for interference by this Court, The petition is dismissed. AA./G‑159/S ~, Petition dismissed.