1989 PLP 1625 (SCMR)
SAID KARIM SHAH‑‑ Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.‑W.F.P. and 21 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1625 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 M.L.R.115‑‑ |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | SAID KARIM SHAH‑‑ Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.‑W.F.P. and 21 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R.115]‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1625 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R.115]‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1625 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 M.L.R.115‑‑ bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1625 (SCMR) (SAID KARIM SHAH‑‑ Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.‑W.F.P. and 21 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ghulam Rasool Khan, Assistant Commissioner, Charsadda for Respondents Nos.l to 3. ,
- Jan Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents Nos. 4 to 22.
- Date of hearing: 15th May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment. of the Peshawar High Court dated 27‑4‑1987 in Writ Petition No.236 of 1987). ‑‑‑Para.25‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. l85(3)‑‑Pre‑emption‑‑Decree in pre‑emption suit was passed on 26‑10‑1982‑‑Leave to appeal granted as prima facie the petitioner was entitled to urge for the restoration of such decree passed before 1‑7‑1986 in view of the case of Sardar Ali and others v Muhammad Ali and others P L D 1987 S C
287. Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others P L D 1988 S C 287 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a pre‑emptor/plaintiff; against the dismissal by the High Court, of his writ petition. The petitioner's pre‑emption suit was decreed by the Collector on the ground /qualification that he was a tenant. It was so decreed to the extent of 40 kanals 19 marlas only out of 64 kanals 11 marlas. The decree was passed on 26‑10‑1982. The Additional Commissioner accepted the appeal of the respondents' side and the suit was dismissed on 19‑3‑1985. The petitioner's revision before the Member, Board of Revenue and the writ petition before the High Court having been dismissed he has now sought leave to appeal. While dismissing the writ petition the High Court observed as follows:‑ "However, this contention is not acceptable for the simple reason that the petitioner had not been granted any decree whereby the petitioner could claim that the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court (in Said Kamal's case) was not applicable to his case." Learned counsel contended that the afore‑noted finding by the High Court is based on an error in appreciating the facts of the case and thus based on misreading. Prima facie, the argument of the learned counsel has force. It is mentioned in the impugned judgment itself that "by his judgment dated 26‑10‑1982, (the Collector) decreed the suit of the petitioner to the extent of 40 kanals 19 marlas and dismissed it with regard to area measuring 23 kanals 12 marlas." Thus prima facie, as held in the case of Sardar Air and others v. Muhammad Ali and others (P I_ D 1988 S C 287) the petitioner was entitled to urge for and seek re,,toration of decree passed before 1‑7‑1986 to the extent of 40 kanals 19 marlas. That being so, it is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. Order accordingly. Security Rs. 5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on present record with direction to file all essential documents. M.A.K./S‑306/S Leave granted.