1982 PLP 1126 (SCMR)
FAZAL DIN‑Petitioner Versus SADIQ KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 1126 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ----S. 15‑Pre‑emption‑Land partly held under allotment by Settlement authorities and partly by way of purchase under provisions of Scrutiny of Claims (Evacuee Property) Regulation, 1961 C. M. L. A's No. 891 as amended by Martial Law Regulation 91 of 1961‑Held, pre emptible as a whole‑Pre‑emption. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | FAZAL DIN‑Petitioner Versus SADIQ KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 1126 (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 1982 PLP 1126 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ----S. 15‑Pre‑emption‑Land partly held under allotment by Settlement authorities and partly by way of purchase under provisions of Scrutiny of Claims (Evacuee Property) Regulation, 1961 C. M. L. A's No. 891 as amended by Martial Law Regulation 91 of 1961‑Held, pre emptible as a whole‑Pre‑emption. bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 1126 (SCMR) (FAZAL DIN‑Petitioner Versus SADIQ KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Muhammad Tufail, Advocate Supreme Court with Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 20th April, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 1‑3‑1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R. S. A. No. 249 of 1973). .
S. 15‑Pre‑emption‑Land partly held under allotment by Settlement authorities and partly by way of purchase under provisions of Scrutiny of Claims (Evacuee Property) Regulation, 1961 [C. M. L. A's No. 891 [as amended by Martial Law Regulation 91 of 1961]‑Held, pre emptible as a whole‑[Pre‑emption]. Haji Sultan Mohammad and another v. Muhammad Siddiq P L D 1973 S C 347 ref.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J ‑This petition is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 1‑3‑1982, whereby the second appeal (R. S. A. No. 249/73, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed. 2: The relevant facts are that 81 kanals 1 marla of agricultural land, belonging to one Abdul Aziz (Respondent No. 2 herein), was comprised of ' two categories of land. The first, measuring 55 kanals, 1 marla of land stood allotted to him under the Displaced Persons (Land settlement) Act, 1958, while the second category consisted of the remaining 20 kanals, which initially were also allotted to him but was subsequently surrendered and re purchased under the provisions of Martial Law Regulation Nos. 89 and 91 of 1961. Both these categories of land were purchased by the petitioner but the said sales were pre‑empted by Sadiq Khan, Respondent No.
1. The question arose whether the sales were pre‑emptible.
3. The trial Court was of the opinion that only 26 kanals of land was pre‑emptible on the ground that the land of this category did not form part of the compensation pool and, therefore, its sale was pre‑emptible. According to it, the sale of the remaining part of the land which was transferred under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act and had not yet gone out of the compensation pool, was not subject to pre emption. He, therefore, decreed the suit to the extent of 26 kanals on the payment of the proportionate price. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge, however, held that the entire land was pre‑emptible and accordingly decreed the pre‑emptor's suit in respect of the total land measuring 81 kanals 1 marlas on payment of Rs. 19,
000. The petitioner, therefore, filed a second appeal before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which, however, was dismissed. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. We have heard Khawaja Muhammad Tufail, in support of the petition and are inclined to agree with the view taken by the learned Judge in the High Court that the pronouncement of this Court in Haji Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Siddiq (P L D 1973 S C 347) covered the situation obtaining in this case and we are, therefore, of the opinion that the said judgment was rightly applied for dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.
5. There is, therefore, no force in this petition, which accordingly fails and is dismissed hereby. Petition dismissed.