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. 105‑R of 1964, decided on 2nd July, 1986.
(On appeal from judgment, dated 13‑3‑1984 of Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 988 of 1984).
‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S. 15‑‑Question as to what was sale price of suit land in pre‑emption suit, held, was a question of fact and any finding thereon could not be challenged before High Court in its writ jurisdiction.
Malik Abdus Sattar Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 2nd July, 1986.
The Collector, while decreeing the pre‑emption suit of the petitioners, granted them a decree on payment of Rs.1,29,000. The petitioners challenged the finding of the Collector regarding the amount of sale price through an appeal. But this was dismissed (by the Additional Commissioner). Their further revision to the Board of Revenue was also dismissed and the writ petition filed against these orders, before the High Court, also failed. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
The question as to whether the sale price was indeed Rs.1,29,000 is clearly a question of fact and any finding thereon could not successfully be challenged before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. The High Court, therefore, rightly refused to interfere and such a decision cannot be interfered with by this Court.
M . Y . H . Petition dismissed .
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer