1986 PLP 1108 (SCMR)
SUMANDAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus NAWAB KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1108 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | SUMANDAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus NAWAB KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1108 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1108 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1108 (SCMR) (SUMANDAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus NAWAB KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. M. Yusuf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th April, 1986.
- Kh. M. Yusuf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 26-6-1984, passed in Writ Petition No. 472 of 1982).
Art. 185(3)--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.22--Petition for leave to appeal--Question raised in petition concerning interpretation of requirement of S.22 of Punjab Pre-emption Act which deserved an authoritative pronouncement--Leave to appeal granted.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner, a vendee of agricultural land, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 26‑6‑1984, refusing thereby to interfere with the revisional order of the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 20‑9‑1982.
2. The petitioner unsuccessfully contested the claim of Nawab Khan, the respondent, to pre‑empt the suit land. The respondent was held to be tenant and allowed to pre‑empt the sale on deposit of Rs.70, 000 by 21‑8‑1981 inclusive of one‑fifth deposit made under section 22 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act. The date the suit was decreed was 21‑7‑1981. On 12th of August, 1981, the pre‑emptor submitted an application in the trial Court that he abandoned his pre‑emption right and sought withdrawal of one‑fifth pre‑emption money amounting to Rs.14,000 and obtained its refund. By second application made on 15‑8‑1981 he got permission and deposited Rs.70,000, the decretal amount due to be deposited before 21‑8‑1981. During the pendenciy of appeal filed by the petitioner he took an objection to this withdrawal of the deposit under section 22 and succeeded. The Board of Revenue, however, reversed this success of the petitioner. His efforts to challenge the same in the constitutional jurisdiction failed. Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a deposit made under section 22 is required to remain intact till the suit is decided and the decree is complied with on success of the pre‑emptor. In this case not only that requirement of the law remained unsatisfied, the decree‑holder in his application for withdrawal of the amount gave a clear indication that he was surrendering or abandoning his pre‑emption rights in the property and it was on that representation that he got the Court's order with regard to refund of the amount and if such had not been the representation, he would not have got the refund.
4. We consider that the question raised concerns the interpretation of the requirement of section 22 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act and strict compliance with the terms of the decree, which deserve authoritative pronouncement. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. A sum of Rs.2,500 to be furnished as security. The appeal to be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file such additional documents as they consider necessary. M.Y.H Leave granted