1992 PLP 1793 (SCMR)
KHUDA BAKHSH and others‑‑‑‑Petitioners Versus JALAL DIN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1793 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | KHUDA BAKHSH and others‑‑‑‑Petitioners Versus JALAL DIN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1793 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1793 (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: 1992 PLP 1793 (SCMR) (KHUDA BAKHSH and others‑‑‑‑Petitioners Versus JALAL DIN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Saeed Hassan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioners.
- Zafar Yasin, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate‑ on‑Record for the Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 17‑3‑1991 in R.FA. No. 220 of 1978). (a) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.4(9)‑‑‑"Estate"‑‑‑Meaning. The expression "estate" has been defined in section 4(9), Land Revenue Act,1967 to mean any area:‑‑‑ (i) for which a separate record‑of‑rights has been made; or (ii) which has been separately assessed to land revenue; or (iii) which the Board of Revenue may, by general rule or special order, declare to be an estate. (b) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.4(9)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether a certain Chak was an estate within the meaning of S.4(9) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 for the purpose of exercise of right of pre‑emption. Malik Saeed Hassan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioners. Zafar Yasin, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate‑ on‑Record for the Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 17‑3‑1991 of the Lahore High Court whereby the regular first appeal preferred by the respondents was accepted and the suit of the petitioners for pre‑emption was dismissed.
2. Dr. Mian Ahmad Nawaz and Mst. Shamim Shah Nawaz were owners of about 2,235 Kanals of land in Chak No.244/T.D.A., District Leiah. By an oral transaction they sold the said land to the respondents. The sale was affirmed through a consent decree passed by a Civil Court on 7‑10‑1974.' The petitioners filed a suit for pre‑emption basing their superior right, inter alia, on the assertion that they were owners in the estate. The suit was decreed by the trial Court where upon the respondents fled an appeal in the High Court. A Division Bench re‑appraised the evidence and came to the conclusion that the petitioners were not owners in the estate. Accordingly, it accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, and dismissed the suit. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. The land in dispute is situate in Chak No. 244/T.D.A. Admittedly, this Chak was at one time part of village Fatchpur. It is not disputed that the petitioners were owners in estate in Fatehpur, though none in Chak No.244/T.D.A.
4. The only question for consideration in this petition is whether Chak No.244/T.D.A. was a separate and independent revenue estate at the time of the sale. The expression "estate" has been defined in section 4(9), Land Revenue Act,1967 to mean any area:‑‑‑ (i) for which a separate record‑of‑rights has been made; or (ii) which has been separately assessed to land revenue; or (iii) which the Board of Revenue may, by general rule or special order, declare to be an estate; There is no direct evidence that Chak No. 244/T.DA. falls under any of these sub‑clauses, although, there is a notification by the Board of Revenue whereby a direction was given for the preparation of a separate Revenue Record for the Chak. On the other hand, there is the statement of the local Patwari (D.W.1) which indicates that the said Chak was still a part of the revenue estate of Fatehpur. In the circumstances, the finding of the High Court that the said Chak was no longer a part of the Fatehpur revenue estate needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs Rs.5,
000. M.B.A./K‑194/S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.