P L D 1994 Peshawar 183 (PLP)
Mst. WAZIRA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus QADIR GUL‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1994 Peshawar 183 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 M.L.R.115‑‑‑ |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza, J |
| Parties | Mst. WAZIRA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus QADIR GUL‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R.115]‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1994 Peshawar 183 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R.115]‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1994 Peshawar 183 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 M.L.R.115‑‑‑ bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1994 Peshawar 183 (PLP) (Mst. WAZIRA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus QADIR GUL‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nasir Mahfooz Khan for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Zahir Shah for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th January, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Para. 25‑‑‑North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950), S.12‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115‑‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑‑Trial Court decreed plaintiffs suit to the extent of entire land‑‑‑Appellate Court conceding defendant's right to the extent of land comprised in his tenancy, modified said decree‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Tenant had already established his right on basis of his tenancy on part ‑ of land in question, on 4‑2‑1985 i.e. much prior to the crucial date determined by the Supreme Court in Said Kamal Shah's case PLD 1986 SC 360 as 31‑7‑1986‑‑‑Defendant being tenant at relevant time was rightly given superior right of pre‑emption qua the Khasra numbers under his tenancy‑‑‑Judgment of Appellate Court would not require to be interfered with in circumstances. Naimatullah v. Government of N: W.F.P. PLD 1979 Pesh. 104 and Government of N. W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah PLD 1986 SC 360 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Nasir Mahfooz Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Zahir Shah for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th January, 1994. A sale of 657/1727 share, by Mst. Gula Jan out of 247 Kanals 15 Marlas of land comprised in Khasras Nos.1040 and 1041 situated in Mouza Manda Khel, Kohat in favour of Qadir Gut through Mutation No. 310 attested on 4‑1‑1982 for a sum of Rs.46,000 was successfully pre‑empted by Mst. Wazira but on payment of Rs.24,356.25 which decree, was granted by Mr.Riaz Ahmad, Civil Judge, Kohat.
2. On appeal, Mr. Attaullah Khan tile then Additional District Judge Kohat, modified the decree of the lower Court and‑dismissed the suit of the lady‑pre‑emptor qua Khasra No.1040 holding the defendant to be a tenant‑at will thereof. This judgment dated 4‑2‑1985 of the 1st Appellate Court is challenged by Mst. Wazira through this civil revision.
3. Nothing was contested before this Court except the superior right of the tenant which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner had extinguished after the finding of the Shariat Bench of this Court in Naimatullah. v. Government of N.‑W.F.P. reported in PLD 1979 Peshawar 104.
4. Although, upon recommendations made in Naimatullah v. Government of N.-W.F.P., the law of pre‑emption was not changed accordingly yet the controversy stood settled once for all by the Supreme Court in Government of N: W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah reported in PLD 1986 SC 360, where the verdict was given that the law of pre‑emption shall stand accordingly changed with effect from 31‑7‑1986. In the instant case the tenant Qadir Gul had already established his right through Court on 4‑2‑1985, much prior to the crucial date determined by the Supreme Court as 31‑7‑1986.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the tenant was rightly given superior right of pre‑emption qua the Khasra number under his tenancy and hence the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge does not require to be interfered with. The revision petition is hereby dismissed. A.A./1549/P Revision dismissed.