1982 PLP 239 (SCMR)
MALA AND 7 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus JAHANGIR AND 3 OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 239 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -- Art. 188 read with Supreme Court Rules 1980, O. XXVI r. 1 Review-Question urged before Supreme Court not raised before Tribunal having exclusive jurisdiction-Not allowed to be raised before Supreme Court for its consideration-Question of jurisdiction also dealt with at great length in judgment under review-Rehearing of same matter, held, not called for by way of review.-Review. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MALA AND 7 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus JAHANGIR AND 3 OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan 1973 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 239 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan 1973 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 239 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- Art. 188 read with Supreme Court Rules 1980, O. XXVI r. 1 Review-Question urged before Supreme Court not raised before Tribunal having exclusive jurisdiction-Not allowed to be raised before Supreme Court for its consideration-Question of jurisdiction also dealt with at great length in judgment under review-Rehearing of same matter, held, not called for by way of review.-Review. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 239 (SCMR) (MALA AND 7 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus JAHANGIR AND 3 OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Allah Yar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdal Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th December 1961.
- Malik Allah Yar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdal Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- 2. The two grounds taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Malik Allah Yar, Khan Advocate, are that the question of waiver of his rights of pre‑emption as a tenant by Jahangir, was not considered in the judgment and an erroneous view has been taken with regard to the jurisdiction of Collector and others in the hierarchy in a matter where dispossession of the tenant had taken place at the instance of a person other than the landlord himself. For the latter proposition, reliance has been placed on the decision of Wall Dad v. Deputy Commissioner Karachi and 2 others (P L D 1975 Kar. 202).
Headnotes / Summary
(Our review of this Court order dated 27-4-1981 in C. P. S. L. A. No. 755/ 1979). -- Art. 188 read with Supreme Court Rules 1980, O. XXVI r. 1 Review-Question urged before Supreme Court not raised before Tribunal having exclusive jurisdiction-Not allowed to be raised before Supreme Court for its consideration-Question of jurisdiction also dealt with at great length in judgment under review-Rehearing of same matter, held, not called for by way of review.-[Review].
Judgment & Decree
Malik Allah Yar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdal Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th December 1961. SHAFI‑UR‑RAHMAN, J. The petitioners seek review of our judgment dated, 25‑4‑1981 whereby their appeal was dismissed.
2. The two grounds taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Malik Allah Yar, Khan Advocate, are that the question of waiver of his rights of pre‑emption as a tenant by Jahangir, was not considered in the judgment and an erroneous view has been taken with regard to the jurisdiction of Collector and others in the hierarchy in a matter where dispossession of the tenant had taken place at the instance of a person other than the landlord himself. For the latter proposition, reliance has been placed on the decision of Wall Dad v. Deputy Commissioner Karachi and 2 others (P L D 1975 Kar. 202).
3. In paragraph 12 of the judgment the act of the tenant Jahangir which was pleaded as estoppel was voluntary surrender of land was considered but not in the context of his pre‑emptive right as a tenant of the land. His conduct was considered in the background of alleged forcible dispossession, We consider that so far as the question of pre‑emptive rights is concerned, I should have been raised and with the decision of the authority having exclusive jurisdiction over such claims, should reach a finality not open to question in the proceedings before us. This was, in fact, not one of the matters examined in the High Court.
4. The decision referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioners has no relevancy to the point in issue in this case because a meaning and effect was given to the word `tenant' used in para. 24 and 26 of the Land Reforms Regulation. Here the word 'landlord' did not as such exist in the Regulation and the learned counsel wanted that it should be read there. The question of jurisdiction has been dealt with at great length and a rehearing on the same matter by way of review is no not called for.
5. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.