1998 PLP 324 (SCMR)
SHAKIR ULLAH KHAN and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MADAD KHAN ORAKZAI and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 324 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hafeez Memon and Irshad Hasan Khan, JJ |
| Parties | SHAKIR ULLAH KHAN and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MADAD KHAN ORAKZAI and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (X of 1987)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 324 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (X of 1987)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 324 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hafeez Memon and Irshad Hasan Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 324 (SCMR) (SHAKIR ULLAH KHAN and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MADAD KHAN ORAKZAI and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Nawaz Abbas, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by M.A. Zaidi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th June, 1996.
- Muhammad Nawaz Abbas, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 11‑12‑1995 of the Peshawar High Court passed in W.P: No.648 of 1995). ‑‑‑‑S. 6‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑‑ Portion of land in question, having been acquired by Authority, plaintiff's application for amendment of plaint and for impleading Authority and beneficiary of acquisition having been dismissed by all the Courts including the High Court, his petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and disposed of with direction that amount of compensation received by vendees be deposited in Court which would be paid to party entitled to the same ‑‑‑Vendees having failed to deposit such amount in Court, their plea that they being owners of land had received compensation according to their entitlement and there being no direction of Supreme Court to re‑deposit such compensation, received by them, they were not bound to deposit the same in Court‑ ‑‑Direction of Supreme Court had been expressed in clear and unambiguous terms that amount of compensation would be deposited in pending pre‑emption suit ‑‑‑Vendees having admittedly received amount of compensation were bound to deposit the same before Trial Court‑‑‑Judgment of High Court requiring vendees to deposit compensation amount relating to land in question in Trial Court being perfectly valid and in conformity with judgment of Supreme Court, would warrant no interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 11-12-1995 passed in Writ Petition No.648 of 1995.
2. Madad Khan Orakzai, respondent No.1 herein instituted a suit for possession through pre-emption in respect of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit a portion of the suit land measuring about 160 Kanals was acquired by the Peshawar Development Authority (hereinafter call the P.D.A.. The application moved by respondent No. l for amendment of the plaint and for impleading the P.D.A. and Muslim Commercial Bank as parties to the suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 10-11-1993. Revision petition against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the High Court. Thereafter, respondent No.1 moved a petition for leave to appeal before this Court which was converted into civil appeal bearing No.583 of 1994 vide order dated 6-7-1994 and disposed of with the following observations:-- "Therefore, while we agree with the learned Judge in chambers that there was no cause of action against P.D.A. and M.C.B. and therefore, they could not be joined as parties in the suit, we would modify the judgment of the learned Judge in Chambers to that extent that the amount of compensation in respect of the acquired land by the P.D.A. will be deposited in the pending pre-emption suit, which on deposit will be invested in some profit bearing scheme by the Court and shall be paid to the party who is found entitled to it on the final disposal of the suit. "
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners being owners of the suit land were paid compensation according to their entitlement and that there was no direction by this Court to the petitioners for re-deposit of compensation received by them.
4. We are afraid that there is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The directions contained in the order dated 6-7-1994 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No.583 of 1994 have been expressed in clear and unambiguous terms that amount of compensation in respect of acquired land shall be deposited in the pending pre-emption suit. The petitioners have admittedly received the amount of compensation in respect of acquired land by the P.D.A. We, therefore, see no reason why it should not be deposited by the petitioners in the pending pre-emption suit before the trial Court. The impugned order of the High Court is perfectly valid and in conformity with the judgment of this Court referred above, warranting no interference. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused. A.A./S-24/S Leave refused.