1988 PLP 1383 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1383 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---S.21--Punjab Land Record :Manual, para. 7.69--Pre-emption suit- Words "Mahal", "Deh" and 'Mauza' are equivalent to the word "estate".--Words and phrases. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Shafiur Rahman and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1383 (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 1988 PLP 1383 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---S.21--Punjab Land Record :Manual, para. 7.69--Pre-emption suit- Words "Mahal", "Deh" and 'Mauza' are equivalent to the word "estate".--Words and phrases. bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Shafiur Rahman and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1383 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mahmood A . Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- M. Aslam Ch., Advocate-on-Record (absent) and S. Munir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st June, 1988.
- Mahmood A . Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- M. Aslam Ch., Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) and S. Munir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 17-3-1987 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Regular Second Appeal No.636 of 1972).
S.21--Punjab Land Record :Manual, para. 7.69--Pre-emption suit- Words "Mahal", "Deh" and 'Mauza' are equivalent to the word "estate".--[Words and phrases].
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑The short question in this petition is as to the meaning of the word "Deh" or "Mauza" as it was contended before the High Court that the pre‑emptor had not alleged that he was an owner in the estate but that an owner in the Deh. The High Court held that the words "Deh" and "Mauza" are the Urdu words for the word "estate", and dismissed the appeal as this was the only question raised. We had issued a notice to the counsel for the respondent and he appeared and supported the. judgment of the High Court. H referred to us paragraph 7.69 of the Land Record Manual at page 338 wherein the words "Mahal", "Deh" and "Mauza" had been show equivalent to the word "estate". There is, therefore, no substance in this petition, which is dismissed. M .B . A . /M‑471/S Petition dismissed.