2003 PLP 766 (SCMR)
NAZIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JAN MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 766 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JAN MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 766 (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 2003 PLP 766 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 766 (SCMR) (NAZIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JAN MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Akbar Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Islam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th March, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 30‑4‑2001 passed by Regular Second Appeal No. 828 of 1980). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 4 & 21‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Sale, liable to pre‑emption ‑‑‑Purchase of suit‑land from allottee of evacuee land from Settlement Department‑‑‑Vendor not vested with full ownership rights‑‑ Payment of settlement dues ‑‑‑Vendee defended the suit for pre‑emption on the ground that the dues of Settlement Department had not yet been paid, therefore, the sale was not pre‑emptible‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Sale of land by confirmed allottee was pre‑emptible‑‑‑Question of payment of settlement fee to the Federal Government was a matter between the allottee and the Government ‑‑‑Vendee having purchased the land as such was not immune from pre‑emption suit‑‑‑Judgment passed by High Court was not interfered with by Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Haji Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Siddiq PLD 1973 SC 347 ref.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss. 4 & 21‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Sale, liable to pre‑emption ‑‑‑Purchase of suit‑land from allottee of evacuee land from Settlement Department‑‑‑Vendor not vested with full ownership rights‑‑ Payment of settlement dues ‑‑‑Vendee defended the suit for pre‑emption on the ground that the dues of Settlement Department had not yet been paid, therefore, the sale was not pre‑emptible‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Sale of land by confirmed allottee was pre‑emptible‑‑‑Question of payment of settlement fee to the Federal Government was a matter between the allottee and the Government ‑‑‑Vendee having purchased the land as such was not immune from pre‑emption suit‑‑‑Judgment passed by High Court was not interfered with by Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Haji Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Siddiq PLD 1973 SC 347 ref. Ali Akbar Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Islam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th March, 2002. MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑ The only ground on which the suit of pre‑emption of the respondents in both the petitions was contested, was that the petitioner had purchased the land from an allottee of evacuee land from the Settlement Department who having not paid the settlement fee, therefore, was not vested with full ownership rights, as such, the sale made in favour of the petitioner was not pre‑emptible. It has been held in the case of Haji Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Siddiq PLD 1973 SC 347 that where the confirmed allottee of evacuee land sells the land, the same is pre‑emptible. The question of payment of settlement fee to the Federal Government by such an allottee was a matter between the allottee and the Federal Government and the vendee in such a case having purchased the land as such was not immune from pre‑emption suit.
2. No ground has been made out for interference with the well -reasoned impugned judgment passed by the Lahore High Court, therefore, these petitions are dismissed and leave refused. Q.M.H./N‑74/S Petition dismissed.