Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition No. 249‑R of 1984, decided on 12th April, 1986.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 26‑6‑1984, passed in Writ Petition No. 472 of 1982).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S.22‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Question raised in petition concerning interpretation of requirement of S.22 of Punjab Pre‑emption Act which deserved an authoritative pronouncement‑‑Leave to appeal granted.
Kh. M. Yusuf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 12th April, 1986.
The petitioner, a vendee of agricultural land, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 26‑6‑1984, refusing thereby to interfere with the revisional order of the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 20‑9‑1982.
2. The petitioner unsuccessfully contested the claim of Nawab Khan, the respondent, to pre‑empt the suit land. The respondent was held to be tenant and allowed to pre‑empt the sale on deposit of Rs.70, 000 by 21‑8‑1981 inclusive of one‑fifth deposit made under section 22 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act. The date the suit was decreed was 21‑7‑1981. On 12th of August, 1981, the pre‑emptor submitted an application in the trial Court that he abandoned his pre‑emption right and sought withdrawal of one‑fifth pre‑emption money amounting to Rs.14,000 and obtained its refund. By second application made on 15‑8‑1981 he got permission and deposited Rs.70,000, the decretal amount due to be deposited before 21‑8‑1981. During the pendenciy of appeal filed by the petitioner he took an objection to this withdrawal of the deposit under section 22 and succeeded. The Board of Revenue, however, reversed this success of the petitioner. His efforts to challenge the same in the constitutional jurisdiction failed. Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a deposit made under section 22 is required to remain intact till the suit is decided and the decree is complied with on success of the pre‑emptor. In this case not only that requirement of the law remained unsatisfied, the decree‑holder in his application for withdrawal of the amount gave a clear indication that he was surrendering or abandoning his pre‑emption rights in the property and it was on that representation that he got the Court's order with regard to refund of the amount and if such had not been the representation, he would not have got the refund.
4. We consider that the question raised concerns the interpretation of the requirement of section 22 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act and strict compliance with the terms of the decree, which deserve authoritative pronouncement. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. A sum of Rs.2,500 to be furnished as security. The appeal to be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file such additional documents as they consider necessary.
M.Y.H Leave granted
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer