2008 PLP 141 (SCMR)
Mst. MEHTAB BEGUM — Appellant Versus Nawabzada NASRULLAH KHAN through L.Rs. — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 141 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. MEHTAB BEGUM — Appellant Versus Nawabzada NASRULLAH KHAN through L.Rs. — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 141 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 141 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 141 (SCMR) (Mst. MEHTAB BEGUM — Appellant Versus Nawabzada NASRULLAH KHAN through L.Rs. — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Malik M. Rafiq Rajwana, Advocate Supreme Court with M. S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.1 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 11th September, 2006.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 6-6-2000 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Regular Second Appeal No.1222 of 1981).
S. 6
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185
Sale was pre-empted by respondent on the grounds that he was a co-sharer in the Khata; was owner in the estate and was real brother of the vendor
Two courts below and High Court concurrently decreed suit
Only objection raised by the vendee/appellant was that pre-emptor/respondent had already been hit by Land Reforms Regulation
Contention of appellant was that surplus land of respondent stood resumed; that he had been brought to the level of subsistence holding and that if the present decree was granted to him, he would again be hit by the Land Reforms Regulation and the grant of decree would be an exercise in futility
Whether a person was hit by Land Reforms, either by purchase or by obtaining a decree, was the sole job of Land Commission to determine and that too in future
Pre-emption decree could not be refused on the sole ground that it would increase the holding of pre-emptor. Respondent No.2: Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.
Mst. Mehtab Begum has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 6-6-2000 of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench whereby a decree for possession through preemption of the suit-land stood concurrently granted against her and in favour of Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan, by three Courts. Her appeal failed before the High Court.
2. Mst. Asooda Begum sold the suit-land in favour of Mst. Mehtab Begum vide Mutation No.17 attested on 31-7-1969 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000.'The sale was preempted by Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan on the ground that he was a co-sharer in the Khtita, owner in the estate and the real brother of the vendor. His stance was accepted by all the three Courts and a decree stood granted on payment of Rs.3,00,000.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute the superior right of the pre-emptor and also did not dispute the amount of consideration. The only objection that he had was that the pre-emptor had already been hit by Land Reforms Regulation. That his surplus land stood resumed and that he had been brought to the level of subsistence holding and that if the present decree is granted to him, he would again be hit by the Land Reforms Regulation and the grant of decree would be a useless exercise in futility.
4. We have not been convinced by the only argument advanced because whether a person is hit by Land Reforms, either by purchase or by obtaining a decree, is the sole job of Land Commission to determine and that too in future, notwithstanding the argument of the learned opposite counsel that even the alleged previous resumption of land is still a matter sub judice. No pre-emption decree can be refused on the sole ground that it would increase the holding of a pre-emptor from subsistence level. There being no force in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./M-186/SC Appeal dismissed.