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 for Special Leave to Appeal No.527‑R/1983, heard on 4th March, 1984.
(Against judgment dated 18‑5‑1983, of the peshawar High Court in C.R. No. 120 of 1980).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑N.‑W.F.P. Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950), Ss.5(c) & 12‑‑Preferential right claimed on ground of contiguity‑‑Co‑ownership in Kassi or Lakhti entitles a person to claim successfully or resist success fully pre‑emption of property‑‑Legal points sought to be raised standing already decided by Supreme Court, and High Court found to have followed law thus laid down‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Syed Alam v. Rabia Gul 1981 S C M R 59; Zia Farhat Awan etc
v. Aurangzeb etc. 1981 S C M R 824 and Ahmad Khan v. Sattar Din P L D 1981 S C 148 ref.
Mughal Baz Khan v. Sher Afzal Khan 1980 S C M R 692 cited but not examined.
Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Afzal Siddiqui Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 4th March, 1984.
.‑‑ The petitioner, an unsuccessful pre emptor, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 18th May, 1983 whereby a civil revision petition filed by him was dismissed and he was not granted a decree for possession. on account of superior right of pre‑emption.
The respondent purchased land in Khasra No .633 in village Chitti Dhakhi, tehsil Haripur, district Abbottabad. The petitioner pre‑empted the sale on the ground of his being a contiguous owner. The vendee resisted it on the ground of his being a recorded owner in the Shamilat Deh Ghair Mumkin Kassi. The trial Court held that such an ownership of a share in the Shamilat Kassi brought the vendee at par with the pre‑emptor and hence disallowed the claim of the petitioner and dismissed his suit. In revision the same finding was affirmed. Hence this petition
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as held in Mughal Baz Khan v. Sher Afzal Khan 1980 S C M R 692 a share in the Shamilat thoroughfare like Kassi did not entitle the sharer thereof to either claim a right of pre‑emption or to resist successfully such a right when advanced by a contiguous pre‑emptor.
The decisions of this Court in Syed Aiam v. Rabia Gul 1981 S C M R 59, Zia Farhat Awan etc. v. Aurangzeb etc. 1981 S C M R 824 and Ahmad Khan v. Sattar Din P L D 1981 S C 148 as also in C.P. 599‑R/ of 1983 lay down the law that such a co‑sharership in Kassi or Lakhti does entitle to claim successfully or resist successfully pre‑emption claim. The legal points sought to be raised by the petitioner stand decided by this Court and the High Court has followed the law thus laid down.
There is no merit in the petition and leave to appeal is refused..
S. Q. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer