Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 53 & 54/11 of 1983, decided on 24th October, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment and orders of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, both dated 6‑2‑1983 passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 92 and 93 of 1982)

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S.15 read with Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M L R 115], para. 25(3)(d) Pre-emption‑‑Unanimous verdict on question of fact regarding sale of disputed property by Revenue Authorities and High Court‑‑No misreading of evidence or any other defect in such finding pointed out‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Bashir A. Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhtar Ali, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioners.

Riaz A. Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.4.

Date of hearing: 24th October, 1983.

.‑‑ The aforementioned Civil Peti tions for leave to appeal Nos. 53 and 54 of 1983 are directed against the judgments and orders of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, both dated 6‑2‑1983 passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 92 and 93 of 1982. This order will dispose of both the Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 53 and 54 of 1983.

2. Learned counsel's contentions are that a pre‑emptor is required to possess preferential right on the date of sale, on the date of suit and on the date of decree in order to pre‑empt the transaction; that respondent No. 4 even though he was a tenant before the sale, which fact has, however, not been conceded by the petitioner, did not remain in possession on the date of sale or on the date of suit or on the date of decree; that as paragraph 25 (3) (d) of the Land Reforms Regulations (MLR 115/72) of 1972 became part of section 15 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913, therefore, a pre‑emptor is required to satisfy all the requirement, of a suit before a civil Court to successfully pre‑empt the transaction.

3. On examining the record available, we find that the entire land) was sold on 3‑4‑1979 and Khasra Girdawari relied upon by the respondent at the time of sale was a question of fact on which there is a unanimous p verdict of the aforesaid authorities i.e. Collector, District Jhelum and Additional commissioner (Revenue) Rawalpindi Division and also the Board of Revenue and vide the impugned order of the Lahore High court where the constitutional jurisdiction was involved. Learned counsel could not point out any misreading of evidence or any other defect to show that the petitioners were in possession whereas the respondents are admittedly the tenants since 10/11 years of the land in question and there is no evidence to show that they have either been ejected through process of law or relinquished the land. Thus we find no merit in these petitions, which are accordingly dismissed.

S.Q. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.