2002 PLP 3843(1) (YLR)
MANZOOR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, LIAQATPUR and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 3843(1) (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mahmood Qureshi, J |
| Parties | MANZOOR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, LIAQATPUR and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 3843(1) (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 3843(1) (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ghulam Mahmood Qureshi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 3843(1) (YLR) (MANZOOR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, LIAQATPUR and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Jamil Anwar Shah for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 9th April, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.21 & 29‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Ss. 45 & 47‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constituitonal petition ‑‑‑Pre‑emption decree, implementa tion of‑‑‑Suit was decreed and possession of suit property was taken over by decree‑holder after depositing whole of sale price of suit property, but Revenue Authorities had not entered mutation as per decree of Court‑‑‑Revenue Authorities were bound under law to implement decree of Civil Court‑‑‑Assistant Commissioner/Collector was directed to see that grievance of decree‑holder was redressed in accordance with law and decree was implemented in Revenue Record without any further delay.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss.21 & 29‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Ss. 45 & 47‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constituitonal petition ‑‑‑Pre‑emption decree, implementa tion of‑‑‑Suit was decreed and possession of suit property was taken over by decree‑holder after depositing whole of sale price of suit property, but Revenue Authorities had not entered mutation as per decree of Court‑‑‑Revenue Authorities were bound under law to implement decree of Civil Court‑‑‑Assistant Commissioner/Collector was directed to see that grievance of decree‑holder was redressed in accordance with law and decree was implemented in Revenue Record without any further delay. Syed Jamil Anwar Shah for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 9th April, 2001. According to averment of petition, the suit of petitioner for possession through pre‑emption was decreed in his favour on 18‑6‑1984. The petitioner deposited whole of the sale price and possession of the suit property in consequence of the decree of Civil Court was handed over to him. The petitioner approached to Revenue Authorities for entering the mutation as per decree of the Court, but no action has been taken so far. The learned counsel submits that the Revenue Authorities are bound under the law to implement the decree of Civil Court.
2. A copy of this petition be sent to Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Liaquat pur who shall see that the grievance of petitioner shall be redressed in accordance with law and the decree shall be implemented in the Revenue Record without any further delay. Compliance report shall be submitted within one month after receipt of copy of this order.
3. With this direction this petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./M‑1514/L Order accordingly.