1989 PLP 1066 (SCMR)
NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SAMI KHAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1066 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 M.L.R. 115‑‑ |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SAMI KHAN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R. 115]‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1066 (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 1066 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 M.L.R. 115‑‑ bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1066 (SCMR) (NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SAMI KHAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Anwar Sipra, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (since dead) for Petitioners.
- S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 25‑10‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, La ore in R.SA. No.249 of 1979). ‑‑‑Para. 25‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Pre‑eruption suit‑ Vendees' claim to be tenants in the land‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑Mere claim by vendees that they were tenants in the land in dispute to defeat the right of pre‑emptor, would not make it a case triable by Revenue Court‑‑Petition being devoid of merit, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising out of a pre‑eruption suit. It was decreed by the trial Court and the petitioner's appeal before the Additional District Judge and the High Court remained unsuccessful.
2. The respondents are the legal heirs of Sami Khan. The suit was brought by Sami Khan. He based his superior right on the assertions that he was a collateral of the vendors and also an owner in the estate. The petitioners resisted the suit, alleging that they were tenants in the land in dispute and as such the right claimed by Sami Khan was not superior to that of their own. The Courts below have found that among the petitioners Nazar Muhammad alone was a tenant in the land in dispute at the time of the impugned sale; however, as he had joined non‑tenants alongwith him in the sale, he had relegated himself to the position occupied by his co‑vendees. This finding has not been challenged before us.
3. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that as they were claiming to be tenants in the land in dispute, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit of Sami Khan and that the matter fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the A Revenue Court. This contention is without any merit; merely because the petitioners were claiming to be tenants in the land to dispute to defeat the right of Sami Khan would not make it a case triable by the Revenue Court. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. AA./N‑145/S Leave refused.