Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Review No. 41 of 1981 in Civil Appeal No. 91 of 1979, decided on 12th December, 1981.
(Our review of this Court order dated 27‑4‑1981 in C. P. S. L. A. No. 755/ 1979).
Constitution of Pakistan 1973‑
‑‑ Art. 188 read with Supreme Court Rules 1980, O. XXVI r. 1 Review‑Question urged before Supreme Court not raised before Tribunal having exclusive jurisdiction‑Not allowed to be raised before Supreme Court for its consideration‑Question of jurisdiction also dealt with at great length in judgment under review‑Rehearing of same matter, held, not called for by way of review.‑[Review].
Malik Allah Yar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdal Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 12th December 1961.
The petitioners seek review of our judgment dated, 25‑4‑1981 whereby their appeal was dismissed.
2. The two grounds taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Malik Allah Yar, Khan Advocate, are that the question of waiver of his rights of pre‑emption as a tenant by Jahangir, was not considered in the judgment and an erroneous view has been taken with regard to the jurisdiction of Collector and others in the hierarchy in a matter where dispossession of the tenant had taken place at the instance of a person other than the landlord himself. For the latter proposition, reliance has been placed on the decision of Wall Dad v. Deputy Commissioner Karachi and 2 others (P L D 1975 Kar. 202).
3. In paragraph 12 of the judgment the act of the tenant Jahangir which was pleaded as estoppel was voluntary surrender of land was considered but not in the context of his pre‑emptive right as a tenant of the land. His conduct was considered in the background of alleged forcible dispossession, We consider that so far as the question of pre‑emptive rights is concerned, I should have been raised and with the decision of the authority having exclusive jurisdiction over such claims, should reach a finality not open to question in the proceedings before us. This was, in fact, not one of the matters examined in the High Court.
4. The decision referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioners has no relevancy to the point in issue in this case because a meaning and effect was given to the word tenant' used in para. 24 and 26 of the Land Reforms Regulation. Here the word 'landlord' did not as such exist in the Regulation and the learned counsel wanted that it should be read there. The question of jurisdiction has been dealt with at great length and a rehearing on the same matter by way of review is no not called for.
5. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer