Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 3111 = 1981 SLD 3111 = 1981 SCMR 337
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No17-P of 1980 decided on 13th December 1980. (On appeal from the judgment and order dated 17-12-1979 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in W. P. No. 830 of 1979)
Presented By: Anwarul Haq, C,J and Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, J
Rafayat Ali Shah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Qasim Imam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Fazalllahl, Advocate with Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents.

NOOR AHMAD SHAH Petitioners

VERSUS

MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, Etc, Respondents

Law: Land Reforms Regulation, 1972

Section: 25(3)

Law: N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, (XIV of 1950)

Section: 23(4)

(a) Land Reforms Regulation; 1972 [C. M. L. A.s No. 115] Para. 25 (3)d read with sub-Para (5) & (8) and N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act (XIV of 1950),S.23 (4) Pre-emption money deposit of---Procedure to be followed in Pre-emption suits filed under Martial Law Regulation 115 Not determined under any provision of Regulation Regulation also not even attempting to define term Pre-emption intention being to give it same meaning and definition as already embodies in Pre-emption law obtaining in Province concerned Regulation as such creates a substantive right of Pre-emption in favour of tenants but does not seek to override or depart from procedure embodies in N.W.F.P. pre-emption Act 1950 for dealing with suits instituted for exercise of such right Pre-emption suits filed under provision of Regulation hence held required to be heard by collector as a civil court Following procedure prescribed by N.W.F.P. pre-emption Act 1950 collector acts within his jurisdiction in prescribed period for deposit of pre-emption money and can reject plaint of account of non-compliance with his direction. (b) Land Reforms Regulation; 1972 [C. M. L. A.s No. 115] para 25 (d) read with N.W.F.P. pre-emption Act 1950 S.23(4) Pre-emption money non-deposit of Extension of time plaint, rejection of Contention that deposit of pre-emption money having been made within extended period plaint could not be rejected--Such position not canvassed before Collector, nor before Additional Commissioner or Member, Board of Revenue, or High Court--Held, plea being new, not entertainable--Production of photocopy of an application allegedly made by petitioner to Collector and containing an order extending time--Not conclusive in determining its truth--Petitioner if really obtaining extension in time, no plausible reason appearing as to why such point not pressed before lower Tribunals nor could extension of time already granted be excluded from consideration by such authorities.-{Plaint]. Date of hearing : 13th December, 1980.                                                      …
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register