1994 PLP 1705 (SCMR)
GHAZI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH YAR and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1705 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | GHAZI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH YAR and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1705 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1705 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1705 (SCMR) (GHAZI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH YAR and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th December, 1993.
- 4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner was in cultivating possession off he land in dispute as tenant on Kharif 1976 when the transaction of sale had taken place. In support of his submission he referred to relevant Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 1974 recorded on 22-11-1974.He however admitted that entry to that effect in Khasra Girdwri was made on 22-11-1974.
- 5.We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and have perused the copy of Khasra Girdawri annexed with this petition. The relevant entries in the Khasra Girdawri show that Allah Yar Zulfiqar and Muzffar sons of Muhammad Yar vendees/respondents herein were recorded in continuous cultivating possession of Khasra No4073 as tenants under Ghulam Muhammad since Kharif 1972 onward. The induction of he petitioner as tenant in Kharif 1974 would only show hat on 22-11-1974 the petitioner was recorded as tenants. The sale transaction had admittedly taken place on 30-8-1974 and there is nothing on the record to prove that the petitioner was in cultivating of the suit land as tenant on that day.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 24‑6‑1992, in W.P.5091/1984). Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R 115]‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Para. 25‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for pre emption on basis of being tenant in land‑‑‑No document was brought on record to prove that plaintiff was in cultivating possession of land in question on the admitted date of sale‑-‑Finding of High Court that plaintiff was not tenant of land in question, on the day of sale, after appraising evidence on record including relevant entry in Khasra Girdawari was subject to no exception‑‑ Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑‑Ghazi petitioner herein, through this petition under .Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 24‑6‑1992, of the Lahore High Court, whereby Writ Petition No. 5091/1984 was allowed and the case was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Mianwali, for fresh decision in accordance with law.
2. The petitioner instituted a suit for pre‑empting the sale of the land in dispute evidenced through Mutation No. 3871 dated 30‑8‑1974, on the ground that he was tenant of the land at the time of sale. The suit was contested by the vendees/respondents. The Collector seized of the suit after recording evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that Ghazi plaintiff could prove his tenancy over the land measuring 32 Kanals and 13 Marlas bearing Khasra No.4073 at the time of sale. He accordingly decreed the suit on 28‑12‑1977 and dismissed in regard to the rest of the land measuring 4 Kanals and 6 Marlas. The judgment and decree was unsuccessfully challenged by the vendees/ respondents In appeal before Additional Commissioner Revenue and in revision before member Board of Revenue.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions the vendees invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court writ petition No5091/1984, which was accepted on 24-6-1992 vide impugned judgment as aforementioned. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner was in cultivating possession off he land in dispute as tenant on Kharif 1976 when the transaction of sale had taken place. In support of his submission he referred to relevant Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 1974 recorded on 22-11-1974.He however admitted that entry to that effect in Khasra Girdwri was made on 22-11-1974. 5.We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and have perused the copy of Khasra Girdawri annexed with this petition. The relevant entries in the Khasra Girdawri show that Allah Yar Zulfiqar and Muzffar sons of Muhammad Yar vendees/respondents herein were recorded in continuous cultivating possession of Khasra No4073 as tenants under Ghulam Muhammad since Kharif 1972 onward. The induction of he petitioner as tenant in Kharif 1974 would only show hat on 22-11-1974 the petitioner was recorded as tenants. The sale transaction had admittedly taken place on 30-8-1974 and there is nothing on the record to prove that the petitioner was in cultivating of the suit land as tenant on that day. 6.The finding of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court that the petitioner was not tenants of the land in question on the date of sale after appraising evidence on the record including relevant Khasra Girdawri is subject to no exception.
7. We can therefore find no legal basis for interference with the judgment of the High Court Leave is refused. A.A./G-433/S Leave refused.