Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

MUHAMMAD MASOOD KHAN BHATTI versus GHULAM FATIMA


Article ?55 ()) permits the Punjab Pre-Emission Act (Constitution of 1913), Sections 15 and 16, to consider whether, in the case of land, in conflict with the conduct of the respondents. Relinquish its preferential right to transfer.
1984 S C M R 1385

Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Actg. C.J., Nasim Hasan Shah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ

MUHAMMAD MASOOD KHAN BHATTI‑‑Petitioner

versus

Mst. GHULAM FATIMA‑‑Respondent

Civil Petition No. 206 of 1982, decided on 25th October, 1982.

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 1‑2‑1982 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, in Regular First Appeal No.40/80/BWP).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), Ss.15 & 16‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether, in circumstances of case, conduct of respondent constituted waiver of her preferential right to transfer of land in dispute.

Muhammad Mahmood Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Allah Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 25th October, 1982.

ORDER

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑

It has, inter alia, been contended that the respondent had waived her preferential right as evidenced by the statements of D.W.6 (Rashid Faiz) and D.W.9 (Muhammad Masood) which established that despite the knowledge of transfer of the land in favour of the petitioner herein for a sum of Rs. 57,000 and even on being asked to take the land she refused to do so. This conduct in the circumstances of the case constituted waiver and that this plea had been rejected on academic considerations rather than the true realities of the situation.

The case requires further consideration. Leave is, accordingly, granted.

Security in the sum of Rs.2,000.

Interim order to status quo as to the possession passed on 10‑3‑1982 to continue meanwhile.

S. Q. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
top advocates from Kotla Jam lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.