1987 PLP 750 (SCMR)
Kanwar MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB AHMAD KHAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 750 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, S. A. Nusrat and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Kanwar MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB AHMAD KHAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 750 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 750 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, S. A. Nusrat and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 750 (SCMR) (Kanwar MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB AHMAD KHAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Bashir Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 19‑12‑1979 in W.P. No.6933 of 1979). ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulations, 1959 [M.L.R.641‑‑Board of Revenue finding that the vendors had sold their entire holding and for that reason provisions of M. L. R.64 were not attracted to case‑‑High Court, held, was right in not interfering with such finding‑‑Petitioners also found not to have come to High Court with clean hands‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulations, 1959 [M.L.R.641‑‑Board of Revenue finding that the vendors had sold their entire holding and for that reason provisions of M. L. R.64 were not attracted to case‑‑High Court, held, was right in not interfering with such finding‑‑Petitioners also found not to have come to High Court with clean hands‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Ch. Bashir Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th February, 1987. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑ This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment dated 19‑12‑1977 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the Constitutional petition of the petitioners wherein they had challenged the order dated 31‑1‑1978 of the Board of Revenue.
2. The controversy between the parties which has given rise to this petition was whether two of the sales made by petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, which were evidence by mutations attested on 23‑3‑1962 and 15‑11‑1960, were hit by Martial Law Regulation 64 for the reason that after the sales the vendors were left with an area less than that of a subsistence holding. The Board of Revenue found that the vendors had sold their entire holding and for that reason the provisions of Martial Law Regulation 64 were not attracted. The High Court refused to interfere with this finding on the round that it was one of fact. The petitioners have now seek leave to appeal from this Court to call in question the orders of the ,High Court and the Board of Revenue.
3. There can be no doubt that the High Court was right in not interfering with the finding of the Board of Revenue that the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 had sold their entire holding. It is also to be noticed that petitioner No. 1 did not figure in the sales and as such he had no locus standi in the matter. Petitioners Nos. 2 arid 3 had clearly not come to the High Court with clean hands. At no stage during the proceedings before the Revenue authorities or in the High Court they had made an offer to refund the prices which they have received from respondents Nos. 1 and
2. It was thus a case where they wanted to keep the money and also get the land back. It is, therefore, not a fit case where this Court should grant leave to appeal to the petitioners. S.Q./M‑40/S Petition dismissed.