1990 PLP 23 (SCMR)

(b) Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R.1151

Para.25

Constitution, of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)

Leave to appeal having ~en granted to consider an entirely new ground which was neither available nor ',,,ken at an earlier stage, it would not indicate that when the impugned judgment was passed by the High Court or the Board of Revenue, there was no lawful authority to do so or the judgment suffered fry illegality or error

Such judgments thus could not be set aside

Where subsequent events (viz. tenant's right of pre-emption having been declared to be against the Injunctions of Islam), had frustrated the proceedings, then appropriate course was to go before the forum where the proceedings had gone and raise before that forum such questions of law and fact

Authority before whom proceedings were pending was required to implement the orders and law laid down by Supreme Court and not the Supreme Court itself to enforce it in each individual case without affording the Statutory Authorities an opportunity to do so

Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without recording any finding on the specific question on which leave to appeal was granted and left it to the forum, receiving the case on remand, to examine the question of law and fact arising in the case, in view of judgment given in Sardar Ali's case P L D 1988 S C 287 and give effect to it. Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to

3. Respondent No.4: Ex parte. Date of hearing: 7th June, 1989. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--Leave to appeal was granted to the vendee to a pre-emption claim under Land Reforms Regulation by a tenant, to examine the effect of the decision given in Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali P L D 1988 S C 287.

2. A pre-emption suit was instituted by the tenant when land measuring 19 kanals 4 marlas was sold by its owners Mubarik Ali and Muhammad Shafi in favour of the petitioner on 19-2-1981. The Khasra Girdawari showed the plaintiff to be tenant but it was corrected under the orders of the Collector to show the vendee as its tenant. The suit of the plaintiff/predecessor-in-interest of the respondents on that account failed before the Collector and the Additional Commissioner. When the matter came before the Board of Revenue on 6-5-1985, the Collector on reconsideration restored the entries in the Khasra Girdawari showing the plaintiff/predecessor-in-interest of the respondents to be tenant' whereupon the Board of Revenue remanded the case to the Collector for re examining the merits of the claim. By the Constitution Petition, what was challenged was that pending the suit the Khasra Girdawari should not have been corrected. The High Court held that there was no such stultification of the statutory power of the Collector simply because the litigation was going on. In this background leave to appeal was sought.

3. It is to be noted that leave to appeal was granted to consider an entirely new ground not available and not taken at any earlier stage. It cannot, therefore, be said that when the impugned judgment was passed by the High Court or by the Member, Board of Revenue, there was no lawful authority to do so or that the judgment suffered from any illegality or error. That being the case those judgments cannot be set aside. If subsequent events have. frustrated the proceedings then appropriate course was to go before the Officer where the proceedings had gone and raise before him such questions of law and fact. It is for that authority to implement the orders and the law laid down by this Court and not for this Court to enforce it in each individual case without affording the Statutory Authorities an opportunity to do so.

4. Hence we dismiss this appeal without recording my finding on the specific questions on which leave to appeal was granted and leave it to the officer receiving the case on remand to examine the questions of law and fact arising in the case in view of judgment given in Sardar Ali's case P L D 1988 S C 287 and give effect to it. No order as to costs. A.A./L-35/S Appeal dismissed,