1986 PLP 183 (SCMR)
ABDUL REHMAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 183 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Actg. C.J., Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S.A. Nusrat, JJ. |
| Parties | ABDUL REHMAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 183 (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 183 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Actg. C.J., Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S.A. Nusrat, JJ..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 183 (SCMR) (ABDUL REHMAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption‑‑Right of pre‑emption ‑‑Courts below reaching at a finding of fact that respondent was a tenant of suit land and this finding rooted in evidence‑‑Order of High Court refusing to interfere with finding in constitutional jurisdiction, held, unexceptionable‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Lahore High Court dismissing the Constitution petition filed by the petitioners by which they sought to challenge the pre‑emption decree dated 20th August, 1977 passed by Collector, Sargodha in favour of respondent
1. Petitioners' plea in support of the petition before the High Court as well as the petition before us is that respondent not being the tenant of the suit‑land, was not entitled to claim the right of pre‑emption. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of the record before us, we find that it has been held as a finding of fact not only by the trial Court, but also at various stages thereafter that the respondent was a tenant. This finding is rooted in evidence, and the learned Judge in the High Court, therefore, very rightly refused to exercise the constitutional jurisdiction. No exception can be taken against the judgment of the learned Judge in the High Court. The petition is dismissed. M. Y. H. Leave refused.