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. 232‑R of 1985, decided on 15th October,1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 29‑1‑1985 passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 159 of 1968).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S. 9‑‑Pre‑emption‑ Affectees of Mangla Dam Project‑‑Exclusion of‑‑Petitioners claiming that suit land was not pre‑emptible because of a Government Notification‑‑ Leave to appeal granted to examine question whether petitioners were entitled to protection under Government of West Pakistan, Board of Revenue Notification No. 5668‑65/3306‑IROV, dated 15‑9‑1965 as affectees of Mangla Dam Project.
Mangta Khan v. Hamida Begum and others P L D 1981 S C 51 ref.
Kh. M. Yusuf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Karam Elahi Bhatti, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing; 15th October. 1986.
suit for pre‑emption was filed by deceased Fazal Karim which was resisted by the defendant /petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the suit property was not pre‑emptible in view of a Notification of the Government of West Pakistan, Board of Revenue No. 5668‑65/3306‑IROV, dated 15‑9‑1965. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but plaintiff's appeal was accepted by the learned District Judge. The petitioners, in the circumstances took up the matter in Second Appeal before the High Court which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the disputed property was not pre‑emptible by virtue of the notification No. 5668‑65/3306‑IROV, dated 15‑9‑1965. He further invited our attention to the certificate issued to the petitioners by the Commissioner, Mangla Dam Affairs certifying that the petitioners were persons affected on account of the acquisition of land for the project of the Mangla Dam Reservoir.
The contentions require examination. Leave is accordingly granted to examine the question whether the petitioners were entitled to the protection under the abovementioned notification as affectees of the Mangla Dam Project. As respects the wording of the certificate the learned counsel referred to a decision of this Court case reported as Mangta Khan v. Hamida Begum and others P L D 1981 S C 51 where a certificate of similar nature was relied upon for the purpose of granting relief. Security Rs.2,500. The appeal will be heard on the same record. The execution of the decree pertaining to the suit land shall remain stayed till the hearing of the appeal.
M.I. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer