1990 PLP 1567 (SCMR)
Maulvi GHULAM SHABBIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RANJHA KHAN and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1567 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Wahiddudin Ahmad and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Maulvi GHULAM SHABBIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RANJHA KHAN and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (1 of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1567 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (1 of 1913)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1567 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Wahiddudin Ahmad and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1567 (SCMR) (Maulvi GHULAM SHABBIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RANJHA KHAN and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- D.M. Arbey, ‑Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th February, 1978.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 5‑6‑1974, passed by the Lahore High Court in R.S.A. No.476 of 1905). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 4 & 15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Sale, pre‑emptibility of‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑High Court on basis of judgment of Supreme Court reported as P L D 1973 SC 347 found that sale in dispute was pre‑emptible‑‑ Petitioner requiring reconsideration of that judgment failed to advance any good reason as to why view expressed by Supreme Court in a considered judgment should be reconsidered‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. Sultan Muhammad v. Muhammad Siddique PI D 1973 SC 347 ref.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑Salamatullah, who was an allottee of the land in dispute, sold his rights therein to the petitioner herein, vide registered deed dated 5‑3‑1962. Ranjha Khan, respondent No.1 herein, filed a suit for pre emption against the petitioner claiming superior right of pre‑emption on the ground of being a co‑sharer in the Khata. The suit was dismissed by the learned Administrative Civil Judge vide his judgment dated 16‑6‑19( i4, on the ground that the nature of the right and interest conferred under the enactment upon the transferee of the land was not such as to entitle him to ownership and, therefore, the sale was not pre‑emptible. An appeal was taken to the District Court against the above judgment, but was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh, on 4th September, 1964. A second appeal was accordingly filed in the Lahore High Court, and Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, Chief Justice (as he then was) observed that the sale was made on 5th March, and the property had by that date ceased to be an evacuee property, having been acquired under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and that this Court in the case of Sultan Muhammad (PLD 1973 SC 347) had held that such sales were pre‑emptible. Following the said pronouncement the appeal was accepted by his judgment dated 5‑6‑1974 and the judgments and decrees of the learned Administrative Civil Judge and the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh, were set aside. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the last mentioned judgment. The main contention urged before us, in support of this petition for leave, is that the judgment of this Court in Sultan Muhammad v. Muhammad Siddique (PLD 1973 SC 347) requires reconsideration. However, no good reason has been advanced before us as to why the view expressed by this Court in a considered judgment should be reconsidered. An attempt was then made to show that the present case was not governed by the aforesaid judgment, on the ground that the vendee‑respondent was not a confirmed allottee and hence the transaction of sale entered into by him was not subject to the incident of pre‑emption. We do not agree. Respondent No.2, Salainatullah was, according to his own showing, a quasi‑permanent allottee and sales by such allottees are subject to the incident of pre‑emption as is evident from the observation made by this Court at page 361 of the report. This petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim order passed on 27‑8‑1974 stands vacated. H.B.T./881/S Petition dismissed.