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.
R.O.R. No.142 of 1982, decided on 19th November, 1984.
‑‑‑S.164‑‑Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (MLR 115), para. 25‑‑Revision against concurrent findings of fact‑‑Requirements‑‑Where contentions made in grounds of revision against concurrent findings of Courts below, remained unsupported, Board of Revenue rejected revision against such findings.
‑‑‑S.164‑‑Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115), para.25‑‑Price of land‑‑Mode for determining‑‑Five years average price, held, was not an acceptable guide for determining price of land in cases where price had been recited in registered deed‑‑Board of Revenue maintained price as fixed by Collector in accordance with recital in registered deed and set aside price by Appellate Court in appeal on basis of average sale price.
Saif Niaz for Petitioner.
Malik Talib Hussain Awan for Respondents.
The brief fats leading to this revision are that the pre‑emption suit filed by the respondents, Riaz‑ud‑Din and Abdul Majid, for possession under MLR 115 on the basis of superior rights of tenancy was decreed by the A . C . /Collector, Talagang in their favour to the extent of 3 kanals on payment of Rs.500 as consideration money. The issue of price was agitated in appeal by the respondents on which the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi, vide orders dated 7‑12‑1988, reduced the price to Rs.2,458.20. The petitioner being aggrieved by the decree has brought this revision.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On the issue of tenancy, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not referred me to any evidence to dislodge the concurrent findings of the lower Courts. The contentions made in the grounds of revision remain unsupported. I would accordingly maintain the decree in favour of the respondents and reject the revision to this extent.
3: The price of the suit land was determined by the A . C . /Collector) at Rs.7,500 which seems to have been arbitrarily reduced by the learned Additional Commissioner to Rs.2458.20 on the basis of average,, sale price for five years. It has been the consistant view of this' Court that five years average price is not an acceptable guide for determining the price of the suit land in cases where the price has been recited in the registered deed. The price of the suit land is accordingly fixed at Rs.7,500 according to the price recited in the registered sale‑deed, and it is directed that the balance price would be deposited by the respondents within one month of this order failing which their pre‑emption, suit would be deemed as dismissed.
A.A./232/R Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer