1988S48 (PLP)
Civil Petition No.944 of 1981 Versus MEMBER (REVENUE) and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988S48 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and |
| Parties | Civil Petition No.944 of 1981 Versus MEMBER (REVENUE) and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988S48 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988S48 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988S48 (PLP) (Civil Petition No.944 of 1981 Versus MEMBER (REVENUE) and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch..Muhammad Ashraf Wahla, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Civil Petition No.944 of 1981).
- M.Aslam Ch., Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (in Civil Petition No.944 of 1981).
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir‑ Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Civil Petition No.1005 of 1981).
- Nemo for Respondent (in Civil Petition No.1005 of 1981).
- Rana Abdul Rahim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Civil Petition No.14 of 1984).
- Nemo for Respondent (in Civil Petition No.14 of 1984).
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch.M.Khalil, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Civil Petition No.72 of 1984).
- Nemo for Respondents (in Civil Petition No.72 of 1984).
- Date of hearing: 24th May, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Petition No.1005 of 1981 ........................... MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑Petitioner versus Haji MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM‑‑Respondent (Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court Lahore, dated 6‑7‑1981 in F.A.0. No.147 of 1976). Civil Petition No.14 of 1984 MUHAMMAD AKRAM and 2 others‑‑Petitioners versus Mst. RIFAT ZAHRA‑‑Respondent (Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 2‑11‑1983 in C.R. No.477 of 1983). Civil Petition No.72 of 1984 INAYAT ALI and another‑‑Petitioners versus ILAHI BAKHSH and others‑‑Respondents (Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 13‑11‑1983 in Civil Revision No.1323 of 1983). Civil Petitions Nos. 944; 1005 of 1981, 14 and 72 of 1984, decided on 24th May, 1988. Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑Art. 203‑D(3)(b)‑‑Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R.115), para. 25‑‑North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950), S.7‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), Ss. 15 & 30‑‑Where no decree had been passed in favour of pre‑emptor, at any stage, before 31st July, 1986 when the Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Malik Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 S C 360 came into effect, such decree, held, could not be passed after the said date in favour of pre‑emptor‑on any ground‑ co‑ownership contiguity etc.‑‑Such plea, however, will have to be raised before the Courts where matters were now pending. Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others P L D 1988 S C 287 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑In all these petitions filed by vendees in separate pre‑emption matters, their respective counsel made statements that no decree has so far been passed in favour of the respondent s‑pre‑emptors in these cases at any stage before the 31st of July, 1986 when the judgment of this Court in the case of Malik Said Kamal Shah (P L D 1986 S.C. 360) came into effect. That being so, as held in this Court's judgment in the case of Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others (C.A.208/80 and other matters decided on 2‑5‑1988, P L D 1988 S C 287) no decree can be passed now after the said date‑in favour of the pre‑emptors‑on any ground co‑ol.Nnership contiguity etc. If it is correct that no decree has been passed in favour of such respondents‑pre‑emptors at any stage prior to the 31st of July, 1986, no decree can now be passed in their favour in view of the judgment in the case of Sardar Ali and others. This plea, however, will have to be raised before the Courts where the matters are now pending. With these observations, these petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous. M. B.A./M‑444/S Petitions dismissed.