1993 PLP 1685 (SCMR)
SHABBIR AHMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus CHENA‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1685 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Muhammad Afzal Lone and |
| Parties | SHABBIR AHMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus CHENA‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1685 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1685 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Muhammad Afzal Lone and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1685 (SCMR) (SHABBIR AHMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus CHENA‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Kadri, Advocate instructed by Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 31st May, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(For review of judgment dated 25‑1‑1993, passed in Civil Appeal No. 1290/90). Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S: 15‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, OXXVI, R.1‑‑‑Review of judgment of Supreme Court-‑‑Three grounds having been raised for the review of judgment, two of them had already been answered in the impugned judgment‑‑‑As regards the ground which remained unanswered in the main judgment, viz. retaining superiority of pre‑emption right, it was not disputed that pre‑emptors, in order to succeed have to maintain their superiority up to the date of decree‑‑‑No law to the contrary having been cited for questioning the law laid in. the impugned judgment, rehearing was not within the scope of review.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek review of judgment dated 25‑1‑1993 on the sole ground that a grantee of resumed land cannot defeat the pre‑emption claim of the petitioners for the following reasons:‑‑ (i) Such a grantee cannot qualify as an owner; (ii) The grant was conditional, made on 23‑5‑1975, much after the pre empted sale and the institution of pre‑emption suit; (iii) The Record of Rights still shows the State as the owner of the land and not the grantee.
2. The Court considered the main grounds (i) and (iii) in the impugned judgment as hereunder:‑‑
"This shows that grant is total and complete. No doubt, it is subject to certain conditions like non‑alienation, proper. cultivation etc. and for non‑observance liable to resumption, yet there are like "restrictive Covenants", as a plot of land given in a residential area not to be used for commercial purposes etc. Restrictive covenants attached to a transfer of land either by grant or sale do not detract from the ownership of the land."
3. As regards the second ground, it is not disputed that the pre‑emptors in order to succeed have to maintain their superiority up to the date of decree.
4. No law to the contrary has been cited for questioning the law laid down in the impugned judgment. Rehearing is not within the scope of review.
5. No ground is made out. Review petition, is, therefore, dismissed. AA./S‑757/S Revision dismissed.