1987 PLP 406 (SCMR)
PIRAN DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, REVENUE BOARD and another ‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 406 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin, JJ |
| Parties | PIRAN DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, REVENUE BOARD and another ‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 406 (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 406 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 406 (SCMR) (PIRAN DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, REVENUE BOARD and another ‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Yusuf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Iqbal Kowkab, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th December, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 15‑10‑1985 in Writ Petition No. 410 of 1985). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S. 15‑‑Pre emption‑‑Right of tenant‑‑High Court declining to interfere in Constitutional jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact‑‑Order impugned‑‑Appellate judgment having been passed on 24‑5‑1984, much before 31-7‑1986 on which date relevant pre‑emption laws had become ineffective, proceedings therein had become past and closed‑‑Petitioner could not be allowed any benefit on basis of Supreme Court decision reported as P L D 1986 S C 360‑‑Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed. Abdullah Khan v. Member; Board of Revenue N.‑W.F.P. and others 1986 S CM R 2006 distinguished. Government of N.‑W.F.P. through Secretary, Law Department v . Malik Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 S C 360 and Sher Muhammad (deceased) represented by his legal heirs and others v. Samundar Khan (deceased) represented by his legal heirs and others 1987 SCMR 108 rel.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 15‑10‑1985 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner's Constitutional petition against decree for pre‑emption passed in favour of the respondent /pre‑emptor on the ground of his being a tenant on the land in dispute, was dismissed.
2. Learned Judge in the High Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction declined to set aside concurrent findings of fact, reached in favour of the respondent /pre‑emptor regarding tenancy by the Additional Commissioner and Member, Board of Revenue, in their appellate and revisional jurisdictions respectively.
3. Learned counsel, therefore, rightly did not challenge the impugned judgment in so far as the merits are concerned. He, however, relying on Abdullah Khan v. Member, Board of Revenue N.‑W.F.P. and others 1986 S C M R 2006, stated that leave to appeal has been granted to examine the effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court (Shariat Appellate Bench) reported as Government of N.‑W.F.P. through Secretary, Law Department v. Malik Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 S C 360. 4.The appellate judgment in this case was passed on 24‑5‑19841 much before the date on which the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Malik Said Kamal Shah came into effect, namely, 31st of July, 1986. This Court has decided in Sher Muhammad (deceased) represented by his legal heirs and others v .Samundar Khan (deceased) represented by his legal heirs and others 1987 S C M R 108 that the proceedings therein had become past and closed (the appellate judgment in the High Court in the said case was, dated 8‑4‑1986), "on the day fixed by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court in the cited case i.e. , 31st July, 1986, from which date only the relevant pre‑emption laws had become ineffective". The petitioner a vendee/ defendant in the said case was held "could not be allowed any benefit on the basis of the said judgment (in the case of Malik Said Kamal Shah)".
5. The case of Abdullah Khan cited by the learned counsel is of no assistance to the petitioner as leave to appeal has been granted in that case on the petition of a pre‑emptor to examine the argument advanced by his learned counsel that 'his right of pre‑emption under the existing law subsisted till 31st of July, 1986, and it could not be taken away with retrospective effect'.
6. Prima facie the argument is in line with the view taken in the case of Sher Muhammad. We, therefore, finding no merit in this petition dismiss the same. M.I./4413/S Petition dismissed.