1988 PLP 1945 (SCMR)
AHMAD ALI and others Petitioners Versus HAJI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1945 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | AHMAD ALI and others Petitioners Versus HAJI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Records Manual |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1945 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Records Manual as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1945 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1945 (SCMR) (AHMAD ALI and others Petitioners Versus HAJI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- C.A.Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1988.
- C.A.Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 30-1-1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No.4278 of 1982). -R.9.9--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Petition for leave to appeal--Correction of Khasra Girdawari during pendency of a suit for pre-emption brought by tenant--Held, Revenue Authority, was not debarred from initiating proceedings for correction of Knasra Girdawari and it was matter of propriety with Revenue Authority to consider whether during pendency of" pre-emption suit it should interfere with Khasra Girdawari--When matter being that of propriety alone no writ could be issued.
Judgment & Decree
(From the order dated 30‑1‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No.4278 of 1982). ‑R.9.9‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Correction of Khasra Girdawari during pendency of a suit for pre‑emption brought by tenant‑‑Held, Revenue Authority, was not debarred from initiating proceedings for correction of Knasra Girdawari and it was matter of propriety with Revenue Authority to consider whether during pendency of" pre‑emption suit it should interfere with Khasra Girdawari‑‑When matter being that of propriety alone no writ could be issued. C.A.Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1988. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑In this petition for special leave to appeal it is contended that during the pendency of a suit for pre‑emption brought by the tenant in a Revenue Court it was riot legally permissible for the Revenue authorities to initiate proceedings for the correction of the Khasra Girdawari. When asked to point out the legal bar upon which the petitioners were relying, the learned counsel referred only to Rule 9.9 of the Land Records Manual This does not contain any bar of the nature pleaded by the petitioners. It merely states that after the book papers have been prepared, the entries‑in the Khasra Girdawaris should not be altered without the permission of the Collector. This rule can hardly be interpreted as a bar of the nature pleaded on behalf of the petitioners. On the contrary, it is a matter of propriety with the Revenue authorities to consider whether during the pendency of the pre‑emption suit they should interfere with the Khasra Girdawari. No writ can be issued where the matter is one of propriety alone. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. M.Y.H./A‑307/S Leave refused.