1988 PLP 1384 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB LAHORE and others-Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1384 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB LAHORE and others-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1384 (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 1988 PLP 1384 (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 1384 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB LAHORE and others-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jahangir A . Jhoja, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Mian Munawar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Attaur Rahman, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.2 to 18.
- Date of hearing: 4th June, 1988.
- Jahangir A . Jhoja, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Mian Munawar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Attaur Rahman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.2 to 18.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 5-5-1984 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1905 of 1984).
S.21--Pre-emption suit--Plaintiff being a lessee and not a tenant at the time of sale cannot claim a superior right.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner filed a suit for pre emption in the Revenue Court on the ground that he was a tenant in the land in dispute. The suit was decreed by the Collector and the decree was affirmed by the Additional Commissioner. The Board of Revenue set aside the decree on the ground that the petitioner was a lessee and not a tenant of the land in dispute at the time of its sale. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the judgment of the Board of Revenue but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel we are satisfied that the petitioner was a lessee and not a tenant. His claim to superior right was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Board of Revenue. This petition, is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. M.B.A./M‑478/S Petition dismissed