1986 PLP 2006 (SCMR)
ABDULLAH KHAN — Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.-W.F.P. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2006 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadir Shaikh, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDULLAH KHAN — Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.-W.F.P. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2006 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2006 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Qadir Shaikh, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2006 (SCMR) (ABDULLAH KHAN — Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.-W.F.P. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdur Rehman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Jalaluddin Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th October, 1986.
- Abdur Rehman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Jalaluddin Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 185(3) & 203-D--Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 ((M.L.R.115), para. 25 (3) (d)--North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act (XIV of 1950), S.12--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 15--Pre-emption- Preferential right of tenant--Repugnancy to injunctions of Islam--Supreme Court having declared that relevant provisions of Regulation (M L.R.115) were repugnant to injunctions of Islam and directing that necessary amendment in law be made with effect from 31-7-1986, leave to appeal granted to consider, inter alia, whether petitioner's rights under present law still subsisted and could not be taken away with retrospective effect. P L D 1979 Pesh. 104 and N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 SC 361 ref.
Arts. 185(3) & 203-D--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.15- North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act (XIV of 1950), S.12--Pre emption--Tenant's preferential rights--Repugnancy to injunctions of Islam--Leave to appeal granted to consider whether after Supreme Court's declaration that a particular provision of Regulation was repugnant to injunctions of Islam and direction having been issued to Government to make necessary amendment in Regulation, petitioner's rights under present law still subsisted and could not be taken away with retrospective effect. P L D 1979 Pesh. 104 and N.W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 SC 361 ref.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a Division Bench of Peshawar High Court, dated 25‑3‑1985 allowing a writ petition filed by respondents 4 and 5 and in result setting aside the decree passed in petitioner's favour by the Collector in a pre‑emption suit. Petitioner's claim to preferential right was based on the ground that they were the tenants of the suit property which is recognised under clause (d) of paragraph 25(3) of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The High Court reversed the judgment of the Courts below on basis of decision reported as P L D 1979 Pesh. 104 (Shariat Bench) wherein it was held that clause (d) of sub‑para. (3) of paragraph 25 of Land Reforms Regulation is repugnant to the spirit of Islam and a recommendation was made to the Government for the deletion of the aforesaid provision of law with immediate effect. This Court has also in "N.‑W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 SC 361" ruled to the above effect but has directed that necessary amendment in the provisions of the Regulation may be made with effect from 31‑7‑1986. Mr. Abdul Rehman Khan, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that petitioner's rights under the present law still subsist and these cannot be taken away with retrospective effect. This and other points raised in the petition deserve consideration. We therefore grant leave and allow the petition. Security Rs.1,
000. The appeal will be heard on the present record within six months. It will. however, open to the parties to fill additional documents, if any. M.I. Leave granted.