1996 PLP 838 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SABIR‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ZAMAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996 PLP 838 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court (AJ&K) |
| Bench Members | Ch. Muhammad Taj, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SABIR‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ZAMAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993 (B.K.)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 838 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993 (B.K.)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 838 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court (AJ&K) bench comprising: Ch. Muhammad Taj, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 838 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SABIR‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ZAMAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Habibullah Khan for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.14 [as substituted by Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase (Amendment) Act, 1993)]‑‑‑Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.42‑‑‑Substitution of S.14, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of prior Purchase Act by amendment during pendency of pre‑emption suit‑‑‑Effect on pending proceedings‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption had been instituted prior to amendment in S.14 of the Act‑‑‑Court below dismissing suit for pre‑emption on basis of substituted provision of S.14 of the, Act‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Courts below gassed impugned order without looking into the judgment of Supreme Court titled "Fazal Dad v. Khadim Hussain", decided on April 24, 1995 which held the field at the relevant time and had to be followed by all the Courts, whereby pending suits before amendment in S.14 of the Act were to be decided on merits‑‑‑Orders passed by Courts below which ran counter to law settled by Supreme Court were set aside and case was remanded to Trial Court with direction to proceed with it in accordance with law. Fazal Dad v. Khadim Hussain and another 1995 MLD 1299 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Secondly‑‑‑ in the co‑sharer, if any, who are agnates in order of succession; Thirdly‑‑ in the persons, not included under firstly and secondly above, in order of succession, who but for such sale, would be on the death of the vendor entitled to inherit the land or property sold; Fourthly‑‑ in the co‑sharers. If no person having a right of pre‑emption under clauses (a) and (b) exercises, it then‑‑‑ firstly‑‑ in the owners, of the Mahal wherein such agricultural land or property is situate; secondly‑‑ in the tenants having the right of occupancy within the property or agricultural land that is being sold. Explanation.‑‑‑In the case of a sale by a female of land or property, to which she has succeeded for her life tenure through her husband, son, brother or father, the word agnate in this section shall mean the agnates of the person‑to whom she has to succeed. " Amended section 14, Right of Prior Purchase Act: "
2. Amendment of section 14, Act II of 1993 (Bikrami).‑‑‑In the Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993 (Act II of 1993 Bikrami) for section 14, the following shall be substituted, namely:‑‑‑ "14.(1) Subject to the provisions of section 13 the right of Prior Purchase in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property shall vest.‑‑ (a) firstly in Shaft‑Sharik; (b) secondly in Shaft Khalit; and (c) thirdly in Shaft Jar. (1) "Shaft Sharik" means ... ... ... ... ... ... (2) "Shaft Khalit" means ... ... ... ... ... ... (3) "Shaft Jar" means ... ... ... ... ... ... (2) Where all the clauses ... ... ... ... ... ... (3) Where there are more ... ... ... ... ... ... (4) Where there are more ... ... ... ... ... ... (5) A participator in the ... ... ... ... ... ... The controversy with regard to the fate of pending cases before the amendment brought in the Right of Prior Purchase Act in 1993, was resolved through the judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in a case titled "Fazal Dad v. Khadim Hussain and another" 1995 MLD 1299, wherein an appeal by way of leave filed on behalf of defendant to dismiss the plaintiff's suit on the basis of an amendment brought in the Act through the Act of 1993, in a suit filed on the basis of section 14 of the. Right of Prior Purchase Act, was disallowed and the suit was directed to be proceeded according to law.
7. The present suit was also held to be dismissed on the ground of amendment in section 14 of the Right of Prior Purchase Act. It appears that the learned District Judge passed the impugned order without looking into the judgment of the Supreme Court which holds the field presently and orders passed by the District Judge and Sub Judge which run counter to the law settled by the Supreme Court, are hereby set aside by accepting the appeal. The case is remanded to the trial Court with the direction to proceed with it in accordance with law. No order as to costs. A. A./80/H. C. A. Case remanded.