1994 PLP 90 (SCMR)
ABDULLAH‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 90 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry; JJ |
| Parties | ABDULLAH‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 90 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 90 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry; JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 90 (SCMR) (ABDULLAH‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Amjad Hussain Syed Naqvi, Advocate instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Mian Attaur Rehman, Advocate for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th December, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 4‑6‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur passed in R.SA. No. 27‑89/BWP). (a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 8 (2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether land in question, was not pre‑emptible in view of Notification No. 74, dated 12th June, 1944, relating to Bahawalpur State wherein land in question, was situate. (b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 8 (2)‑‑‑Land in question, vesting in Provincial Government at relevant time‑‑‑Such land was not pre‑emptible in view of Supreme Court judgment in Noor Muhammad's case 1991 SCMR 512‑‑‑Judgments of Courts below to the contrary wherein suit for pre‑emption had been decreed were set aside and suit for pre‑emption was dismissed. Noor Muhammad through his Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Tufail and others 1991 SCMR 512 rel.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J:
‑This appeal by leave arises in the following circumstances: The appellant purchased an area measuring 33 kanals, 6 marlas and 6 sarsahi situated in Chak No. 7/1‑R, Haroonabad, District Bahawalnagar through a registered sale‑deed dated 13‑3‑1975 from the heirs of one Nabi Bux. The respondents filed a suit for pre‑emption. It stands decreed. At the leave stage it was inter alia contended on behalf the appellant that "the land in dispute was not pre‑emptible in view of the Notification No. 74 dated 12th June, 1944 relating to the Bahawalpur State wherein the land in dispute was situated". Leave was granted on 5‑9‑1990.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the evidence of P.W. 1 and D.W.1 on record to show that the suit land vested in the Provincial Government at the relevant time. This being so, in view of the judgment of this Court in "Noor Muhammad through his Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Tufail and others" (1991 SCMR 512) it was submitted that the land was not pre‑emptible.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents could not controvert the Submission‑
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that since there is an error of law in so far as that the pre‑emption decree has been passed in relation to the land which was not pre‑emptible, the same is set a-side. The appeal is, therefore, allowed but in the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs. N.H.Q./A‑1054/S Appeal allowed.