1986 PLP 932 (SCMR)
SHANA MEER — Petitioner Versus GUL NOOR and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 932 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ----Art. 185(3)--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.21 -Pre emption--Khasra Girdawaris showing that respondents were tenants of five Khasra numbers--Petitioner claiming possession through pre-emption on ground that his land was contiguous to those Khasra numbers--Held: Revenue record is accepted in cases of like nature unless success by rebutted by other side--Petition being frivolous, dismissed and costs forfeited.-- Pre-emption. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | SHANA MEER — Petitioner Versus GUL NOOR and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 932 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 932 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ----Art. 185(3)--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.21 -Pre emption--Khasra Girdawaris showing that respondents were tenants of five Khasra numbers--Petitioner claiming possession through pre-emption on ground that his land was contiguous to those Khasra numbers--Held: Revenue record is accepted in cases of like nature unless success by rebutted by other side--Petition being frivolous, dismissed and costs forfeited.-- Pre-emption. bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 932 (SCMR) (SHANA MEER — Petitioner Versus GUL NOOR and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fazal Elahi Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Dastgir Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th January, 1986.
- Fazal Elahi Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Dastgir Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Judgment and Order of Peshawar High Court dated 3-12-1984 in Civil Revision 103 of 1984)
Art. 185(3)--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.21 -Pre emption--Khasra Girdawaris showing that respondents were tenants of five Khasra numbers--Petitioner claiming possession through pre-emption on ground that his land was contiguous to those Khasra numbers--Held: Revenue record is accepted in cases of like nature unless success by rebutted by other side--Petition being frivolous, dismissed and costs forfeited.--[ Pre-emption].
Judgment & Decree
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑Shana Meer filed a suit for possession through pre‑emption against Gul Noor and another in respect of 1/4th share of the suit land measuring 78 Kanals 6 Marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 4288 to 4294. The learned Civil Judge vide his order, dated 14‑3‑1983 dismissed the suit. Appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge, Kohat Camp Kirk was accepted vide order, dated 27‑2‑1984 setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Courts. The respondents thereafter filed a civil revision in the Peshawar High Court which was accepted by a learned single Judge vide the impugned order, dated 3‑12‑1984 whereby the judgment and decree granted by the learned Additional District Judge was set aside.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged before us that the land of the petitioner is contiguous to all Khasra Nos. 4288 to 4294. We have examined the contention of the learned counsel. It has no force. A careful reading of the evidence on record 'would show that Khasra Girdawaris Exhs. P.W.1/D‑1 and C.W/1 were sufficient to show that the respondent were tenants of five Khasras Nos. 4288, 4289, 4290, 4291 and 4292 in 1976‑77 and there was no need to go in search of any other proof to establish that they were the tenants of the said Khasra numbers. Revenue record is accepted in cases of this nature unless successfully rebutted by the other side. In this case the Patweri was not cross‑examined to discredit him on this score. As a result this petition is dismissed being a frivolous petition and we order the forfeiture of the costs. M . I : Petition dismissed.