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 Petition No. 43 of 1984, decided on 6th May, 1984.
(On appeal from the Judgment, dated 5‑12‑1983 of the Lahore High Court in R. S. A. No. 236 of 1973).
‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), Ss. 15 & 16 Suit for pre‑emption‑ Leave to appeal‑Granted to consider question of law as to whether a suit for pre‑emption was competent in respect of land allotted to displaced persons from Azad Jammu & Kashmir.
Hajf Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Siddiq P L D 1973 S C 347 ref.
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 6th May, 1984.
.‑The question of law involved in this case is as to whether a suit for pre‑emption is competent in respect of the land allotted to displaced persons from Azad Jammu and Kashmir
The learned trial Court, as also the learned Additional District Judge, found that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try such suits because allotments to displaced persons from Azad Jammu and Kashmir were made under a Scheme known as "Scheme for the Temporary Allotment of Rural Evacuee Agricultural land to Jammu and Kashmir Displaced Persons with verified claims in Scheme V to the Registration of the Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956". However, the High Court reversed this finding considering that the controversy stood settled by the pronouncement of this Court in Haji Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Siddiq (P L D 1973 S C 347), wherein, according to the learned Judge in the High Court, it was held that the right of pre‑emption in such cases could be enforced by a civil Court. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted before us that the learned Judge in the High Court has not properly appreciated the judgment of this Court for in that judgment it was held on the other hand, that :‑
"There is no right of pre‑emption in regard to sale by temporary allottees of their rights in the lands as they do not get any salable interest in those lands held by them temporarily."
The contention that the learned Judge in the High Court has not appreciated and applied the judgment of this Court to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand correctly, requires further consideration.
Leave is, accordingly, granted.
Security in the sum of Rs. 1,000.
The interim order dated 29‑1‑1983 shall remain in operation during he pendency of the appeal.
S.Q Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer