1989 PLP 1575 (SCMR)
KHUDA BAKHSH and 5 others Petitioners Versus IMAM BAKHSH Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1575 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 M.L.&115‑ |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | KHUDA BAKHSH and 5 others Petitioners Versus IMAM BAKHSH Respondent |
| Primary Law | Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M.L.&115]‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1575 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M.L.&115]‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1575 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 M.L.&115‑ bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1575 (SCMR) (KHUDA BAKHSH and 5 others Petitioners Versus IMAM BAKHSH Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate instructed by Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 8‑3‑1988 in R.SA. No.45gof 1977). ‑‑‑Para. 25‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S.15‑‑Pre‑emption‑‑Provision of Para. 25 (3‑D) having become part of S.15.of Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913 it visualized a pre‑emption suit with regard to sale of occupancy rights. Muhammad Khan v. Abdul Khaliq Khan P L D 1981 S C 153 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑This is defendants' petition for leave to appeal where in a decree for per‑emption in favour of the respondent on ground of tenancy, has been challenged. The contention of the learned counsel is that the sale in question was of occupancy rights which though being treated as land under the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, could not be treated as land under para.25 of the relevant Land Reforms Regulation; where under the respondent had filed a suit on ground of tenancy. The argument further proceeds that while in the Punjab Pre‑emption Act read with the Punjab Tenancy Act, the sale of occupancy rights is treated as sale of land for purposes of law of pre‑emption, the definition of land in the Land Reforms Regulation was not so wide. The perusal of the definition of land in the Land Reforms Regulation shows that it is prefixed by the condition that it will have to be read in the context of the provision in which it occurs‑‑the provision namely para. 25 speaks about the "pre‑emption". The procedure and other requirements of law of pre‑emption are not contained in the said regulation/paragraph. The provision relating to pre emption is hardly in one sentence. The remaining necessary legal requirement as held by this Court in the case of 'Muhammad Khan v. Abdul Khaliq Khan' P L D 1981 S C 153 was to be discovered from the then existing law of pre‑emption in Punjab. It was held therein that the provisions of paragraph 25(3‑D) had become part of section 15 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act. That being so, the said section had visualised a pre‑emption suit with regard to sale of occupancy rights. This was in addition to the definition of land which included occupancy rights. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel not being tenable, leave to appeal is refused. M.A.K/K‑106/S Leave refused.