1968 PLP 1348 (SCMR)
AMANAT KHAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MUSHARAF KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | 1968 PLP 1348 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Fazle‑Akbar, C. J. and Sajjad Ahmad, J |
| Parties | AMANAT KHAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MUSHARAF KHAN‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP 1348 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP 1348 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Fazle‑Akbar, C. J. and Sajjad Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 PLP 1348 (SCMR) (AMANAT KHAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MUSHARAF KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saeedur Rahman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Raja Abdul Razaque, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 25th June 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On. appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated 15th February 1967, in R. S. A. No. 371/67).
S. 15 (c)‑Pre‑emption‑ Ownership in estate where land or property situated‑Furnishes a right of pre‑emption. JUDGMENT SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑This petition arises out of a pre emption decree which has been affirmed by all the Courts below in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. The sale in question which has been successfully pre‑empted by the respondent related to Muqarridari rights in agricultural land measuring 24 Kanals and 16 Marlas in village Pero Shah, Tahsil Fateh Jang. The sale was pre‑empted by the respondent on the basis of his right as a co‑sharer in the suit‑land and alternatively as an owner of the Khewat and in the village. The suit was resisted on the ground; firstly, that the property was evacuee in nature; and secondly, that the plaintiff respondent did not have a superior right of pre‑emption. It has been found that the land in dispute was permanently settled on the vendors who thus became its owners with a complete right to sell giving rise to pre emption rights. On the second question the Courts have held that although the respondent is not an owner in the Muqarridari rights which have been sold but being an owner of village Pero Shah where the land is situate, he had a superior right of pre‑emption as against the vendees who did not have any such right. Ownership in the estate where the land or property under pre‑emption is situated furnishes a right for pre‑emption as stated in clause thirdly of subsection (c) of section 15 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act. We do not see any valid ground for interference. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑This petition arises out of a pre emption decree which has been affirmed by all the Courts below in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. The sale in question which has been successfully pre‑empted by the respondent related to Muqarridari rights in agricultural land measuring 24 Kanals and 16 Marlas in village Pero Shah, Tahsil Fateh Jang. The sale was pre‑empted by the respondent on the basis of his right as a co‑sharer in the suit‑land and alternatively as an owner of the Khewat and in the village. The suit was resisted on the ground; firstly, that the property was evacuee in nature; and secondly, that the plaintiff respondent did not have a superior right of pre‑emption. It has been found that the land in dispute was permanently settled on the vendors who thus became its owners with a complete right to sell giving rise to pre emption rights. On the second question the Courts have held that although the respondent is not an owner in the Muqarridari rights which have been sold but being an owner of village Pero Shah where the land is situate, he had a superior right of pre‑emption as against the vendees who did not have any such right. Ownership in the estate where the land or property under pre‑emption is situated furnishes a right for pre‑emption as stated in clause thirdly of subsection (c) of section 15 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act. We do not see any valid ground for interference. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.