1994 PLP 494 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN and 10 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN KHAN ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 494 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN and 10 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN KHAN ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 494 (SCMR)?
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 1994 PLP 494 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 494 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN and 10 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN KHAN ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Kadri, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 30th October, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24‑2‑1986 in R.SA. No. 141 of 1981). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 4 & 25‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 188‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, OXXVI, R. 1‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court judgment on grounds that pre‑emptor, during pendency of petition for leave to appeal, had' disposed of land in question to a third person which showed that he was never interested in acquiring the suit land for himself by exercising the right of pre‑emption and that vendees (petitioners) were entitled to receive present market value of land in question and. not the price which they had paid to vendor‑‑‑So far as sale of land in question to third person, by pre‑emptor decree‑holder, is concerned petitioners had produced a document which was not a sale‑deed but merely an agreement to sell in future‑‑‑No law, however, would stand in the way of pre emptor who had acquired land by exercising his superior right to dispose it of in future ‑‑‑Pre‑emptor, under Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913, which was in force at relevant time, was entitled to acquire the land sold at the price actually paid by vendee to vendor‑‑‑Such was the price which would be paid to petitioners under the decree passed against them and they would not be entitled to anything beyond that‑‑‑Review petition, being devoid of merit, was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Shahid Hussain Kadri, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th October, 1993. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J: ‑‑In this petition for review of the judgment of this Court two entirely new points have been taken. These are: (1) During the pendency of the petition for special leave to appeal in this Court the respondent who was a pre‑emptor had sold the land in dispute to a third person; this indicated that he was never interested in acquiring the land in dispute for himself by exercising the right of pre emption; and (2) the petitioners were entitled to receive the present market value of the land in dispute and not the price which they had paid to the vendor. So far as the first contention is concerned we have seen the document produced by the petitioners in support of their assertion. It, is merely an agreement to sell in future and does not constitute a sale by itself. There is no law which would stand in the way of a pre‑emptor who has acquired land by exercising his superior right to dispose it of in future. As regards the second contention there is no legal basis for the same. It is to be noticed that the sale impugned in the suit took place before 6‑7‑1977, the respondent's suit was decreed for the first time by the District Judge on 15‑6‑1981 and the petitioners' appeal before the High Court was dismissed on 24‑2‑1986. Under the Punjab Pre‑emption Act in force at the relevant time a pre‑emptor was entitled to acquire the land sold in violation of his right at the price actually paid by the vendee to the vendor. This is the price which will be paid to the petitioners under the decree passed against him. He is not entitled to anything beyond that in. this case.
2. This review petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed. A.A./M‑1911/S Review dismissed.