SCMR 1985

1985 PLP 902 (SCMR)

UMAR HAYAT KHAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GUL KHAN and others‑‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition No. 842 of 1976, decided on 29th May, 1984.
Honorable Judges
Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1985 PLP 902 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Parties UMAR HAYAT KHAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GUL KHAN and others‑‑Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 902 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 902 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 902 (SCMR) (UMAR HAYAT KHAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GUL KHAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

Representation

  • Raja Muhammad Muzaffar, Advocate Supreme Court and' S.Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1984.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment dated 2‑6‑1976 of the Lahore High Court in R . S . A . 33 of 1977) . ‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan General Clauses Act (VI of 1956), S.2(17)‑‑"Commissioner"‑‑Definition‑‑View of High Court that certificate issued by "Additional Commissioner" to effect that sale of property in dispute was exempt from operation of law of pre‑emption would be deemed to be certificate issued by "Commissioner" found to be correct‑ Leave to appeal refused.

Judgment & Decree

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The question as to whether the certificate issued by the "Additional" Commissioner to the effect that the sale of the property in dispute exempt from the operation of the law of pre‑emption, could be deemed to be certificate issued by the Commissioner.

2. It has been held by the High Court that the definition of Commissioner given in section 2(17) of the General Clauses Act, 1956 includes the Additional Commissioner and, therefore, the latter had the authority to issue the requisite certificate. 3.A perusal of the definition of 'Commissioner' in subsection (17) of section 2, which is to the effect:‑ "(17) Commissioner shall mean the Chief Officer of the Revenue and General Administrator of a Division and shall include an Additional Commissioner such division." clearly shows that the view taken by the High Court that the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), who issued the requisite certificate in such case, would be deemed to be the Commissioner in the relevant regard, is quite correct. This petition therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby. S. Q. Petition dismissed.