P L D 1996 Supreme Court 599 (PLP)
ABDULLAH ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus HAIDER KHAN and others ‑‑‑ Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1996 Supreme Court 599 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, C. J., Shaikh Riaz Ahmad and Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri:, JJ |
| Parties | ABDULLAH ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus HAIDER KHAN and others ‑‑‑ Respondents |
| Primary Law | North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (X of 1987)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1996 Supreme Court 599 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (X of 1987)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1996 Supreme Court 599 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, C. J., Shaikh Riaz Ahmad and Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri:, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1996 Supreme Court 599 (PLP) (ABDULLAH ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus HAIDER KHAN and others ‑‑‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Abdul Hamid Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.
- Date of hearing: 27th February, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
ABDULLAH ‑‑‑ Petitioner versus HAIDER KHAN and others ‑‑‑ Respondents (On appeal from the order. of a learned Division Bench of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 25‑9‑1995 passed in Review Petition No. 13 of 1995). S. 13 ‑‑‑ Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Regulation (II of 1947), Preamble‑:‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) ‑‑‑ High Court had found that irrespective of extension or, non‑extension of N.‑W.F.P. Pre‑emption Act, 1987 to Provincially Administered Tribunal Areas, on the authority of Supreme Court decision in Said Karnal's case, PLD 1986 SC 360, no decree of pre‑emption could be passed after 31‑7‑1986 where the requirements of "Talabs" were not complied with‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention of public importance that the non‑extension of N.‑W.F.P. Pre emption Act, 1987 providing for making "Talabs" as a sine qua non for the grant of a pre‑emption decree had escaped the attention of the High Court which was brought to its notice, but was not persuaded to entertain same, it had, thus fallen into error to dismiss the plea and further that High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction could neither have legally set aside the concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Forums that requirements of Talabs under the Islamic Law of Pre‑emption had been duly made nor it could have non‑suited the petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.‑.‑The sale of the disputed land in favour of respondent No. I was pre‑empted by the petitioner in the Court of Extra‑Assistant Commissioner, Timargera, exercising the powers of Deputy Commissioner under PATA Regulation No. II of 1975 (hereinafter called as the Regulation). The matter was referred to a Jirga for award in pursuance of the Regulation. By majority of two to one the suit of the petitioner was decreed on 27‑6‑1992. Appeal of respondent No. 1 to the Additional Commissioner and revision petition to the Secretary to Government of N.‑W.F.P. Home and T.A. Department were respectively dismissed on 22‑3‑1993 and 8‑8‑1993. Respondent No. 1, feeling still not satisfied, challenged the orders passed by respondents Nos.3 to 5 in Writ Petition No.705 of 1993 before the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar. A learned Division Bench in the High Court vide order dated 24‑4‑1995 held that the impugned judgment and decree was passed on 27‑6‑1992 much after the target date of 31‑7‑1986 with reference to the law laid down by this Court in Said Karnal's case PLD 1986 SC 360 and resultantly non‑suited the petitioner. The answering respondent filed Jzeview Petition No. 13 of 1995 seeking review of the order passed in Writ Petition No.705 of 1993. The learned Judges in the High Court while repelling the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that irrespective of extension or non‑extension of N.‑W.F.P., Pre‑emption Act (X of`1989) on the authority bf this Court in Said Kamal's case PLD 1986 SC 360 no decree of pre‑emption can be passed after 31‑7‑1986 where the requirements of 'Talabs' were not complied with the petitioner, feeling aggrieved, now seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 24‑4‑1995 passed by the High Court refusing to entertain his Review Petition.
2. Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the non‑extension of N.‑W.F.P. Pre‑emption Act (X of 1987) providing for making 'Talabs' as a sine qua non for the grant of a pre‑emption decree has escaped the attention of the learned Judges of the Division Bench which was brought to their notice but they were not persuaded to entertain it and had thus fallen into an error to dismiss the Review Petition. The learned counsel next argued that the learned Judges in exercise of their Constitutional jurisdiction could neither have legally set aside the concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the PATA forums that requirements of 'Talabs' under the Islamic Law of Pre‑emption had been duly made nor they could have non‑suited the petitioner.
3. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are of public importance. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted to consider the contentions as aforesaid. M.B.A./A‑1383/S Leave granted.