1989 PLP 1225 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus Malik FAZAL ELLAHI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1225 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑ Part II, Para. 7‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art. 185(3)‑‑Right of pre emption on basis of being co‑sharer in Khata‑‑Contention that land in dispute was originally an evacuee land which though allotted in the form of specific field numbers to the vendor, remained a joint land and the plaintiff being a co‑sharer in the Khata earlier with the evacuees and now with the vendor had a preferential right of pre‑emption had no merit‑‑High Court's view that by making allotment and transfer of field number, to the vendor, Settlement Authorities had actually partitioned the joint Khata within terms of para. 7 of Part II of West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, whereafter and whereunder, vendor became its exclusive owner and thus petitioner could not claim any right of joint ownership in the so allotted and transferred land, being in accord with provisions of Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, no interference was called for‑‑Leave refused.‑‑Pre‑emption. |
| Bench Members | Karam Elahee Chauhan and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus Malik FAZAL ELLAHI‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1225 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1225 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑ Part II, Para. 7‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art. 185(3)‑‑Right of pre emption on basis of being co‑sharer in Khata‑‑Contention that land in dispute was originally an evacuee land which though allotted in the form of specific field numbers to the vendor, remained a joint land and the plaintiff being a co‑sharer in the Khata earlier with the evacuees and now with the vendor had a preferential right of pre‑emption had no merit‑‑High Court's view that by making allotment and transfer of field number, to the vendor, Settlement Authorities had actually partitioned the joint Khata within terms of para. 7 of Part II of West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, whereafter and whereunder, vendor became its exclusive owner and thus petitioner could not claim any right of joint ownership in the so allotted and transferred land, being in accord with provisions of Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, no interference was called for‑‑Leave refused.‑‑Pre‑emption. bench comprising: Karam Elahee Chauhan and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1225 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus Malik FAZAL ELLAHI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Iftikhar Ahmad Dar, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Aitzaz Ahsan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate- on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 31st October, 1981.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 24‑4‑1979, in R.S.A. 945/78). (a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption suit on the ground of being an owner in the Patti and a co‑sharer in Khata‑‑Plaintiff's suit decreed by Trial Court but findings reversed in first appeal as also upheld in second appeal‑‑Plaintiffs first contention that he was owner in Patti was not borne out in his deposition wherein he stated that he did not know the Patti in which land in dispute was situate‑‑High Court was thus justified in turning down plaintiff's claim as an owner in the Patti‑‑Reference to record to locate the relevant Patti was an exercise uncalled for in circumstances. (b) West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme‑‑ ‑‑‑ Part II, Para. 7‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art. 185(3)‑‑Right of pre emption on basis of being co‑sharer in Khata‑‑Contention that land in dispute was originally an evacuee land which though allotted in the form of specific field numbers to the vendor, remained a joint land and the plaintiff being a co‑sharer in the Khata earlier with the evacuees and now with the vendor had a preferential right of pre‑emption had no merit‑‑High Court's view that by making allotment and transfer of field number, to the vendor, Settlement Authorities had actually partitioned the joint Khata within terms of para. 7 of Part II of West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, whereafter and whereunder, vendor became its exclusive owner and thus petitioner could not claim any right of joint ownership in the so allotted and transferred land, being in accord with provisions of Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, no interference was called for‑‑Leave refused.‑‑[Pre‑emption].
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑‑The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit to pre‑empt the land in dispute which was described more fully in his plaint on the ground of being an owner in the Patti and also a co‑sharer in the Khata. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge on 15‑7‑1974.
2. The vendee/respondent filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge vide his order, dated 6‑11‑1978, whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court were reversed and the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner was dismissed.
3. The plaintiff/petitioner filed an appeal being R.SA. 945/78 but without any success as it was dismissed by the High Court on 24‑4‑1979.
4. The plaintiff/petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court.
5. The first point argued by the learned counsel was that his client was an owner in the Patti and the finding of the two Courts below to the contrary is erroneous. The contention has no merit and in this respect we need not go into the details of this matter because we think that it is sufficient for our purpose to mention that when the petitioner appeared as his own witness in the trial Court he deposed that he did not know the Patti in which the land in dispute was situated. In this state of affairs the High Court was inter alia justified in holding that when the petitioner did not make out a case for being a co‑owner is any particular Patti his claim was rightly turned down. We find nothing wrong with the view taken by the High Court on the peculiar facts and the circumstances, of this case. Learned counsel for this purpose, however, wanted to refer to certain Revenue record to locate the relevant Patti but we are of the opinion that this exercise in the context hereinbefore mentioned is uncalled for.
6. It is then argued that the land in dispute was originally an evacuee land which though allotted in the form of specific field numbers to the vendor (refugee) remained a joint land and the petitioner being a co‑sharer in the Khata earlier with the evacuees and now with the allottee/vendor/refugee had a preferential right of pre‑emption. The contention has no merit. It has been held by the High Court that by making allotment and transfer of specific field numbers to the vendor (to which no objection was taken by the petitioner at the relevant time) the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities, actually partitioned the joint Khata, within the terms of para. 7 of Part II of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, whereafter and whereunder, the vendor became its exclusive 1' owner and the petitioner could not claim any right of joint ownership in the sol allotted and transferred land. We find nothing wrong with this view which is quite in accord with the provisions of law hereinbefore mentioned.
7. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed hereby. A.A./M‑842/S Petition dismissed.