Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 3224 = 1981 SLD 3224 = 1981 SCMR 742
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 430 of 1979, decided on 21st March, 1981. (On petition against the order dated 12th May, 1979 passed by the Lahore High Court in R. S. A. No. 763 of 1978).
Presented By: Mushtaq Hussain and Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, JJ
Ch. Rafiq Ahmad Sabir, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. S. Inyat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent.

ABAAD ALI AND ANOTHER-Petitioners

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD DIN-Respondent

Law: Land Reforms Regulation, 1972

Section: 25 (3) (d)

Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section: 4 (26)

Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M. L. R. 115]  Para. 25 (3) (d) read with West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 4 (26)-Pre-emption by tenant-Petitioners merely able to prove themselves to be lessees in respect of fruit off garden and cultivators of crops in land under garden-Martial Law Regulation 115 having adopted definition of tenant as given in West Pakistan Land Revenue Act and such Act making liability to pay rent main condition for becoming a tenant-No evidence led to show there having existed any liability to payment, hence, no proof existing to show petitioners having been tenants Not being tenants, petitioners, held, cannot take advantage of provisions of Regulation [para. 25 (3) (d)] giving right of pre-emption to a tenant. -[Pre-emption]. Date of hearing : 21st March, 1981 (Lab.).                                                                                                                                                       ORDER MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-Abaad Ali and another purchased land. Mutation in respect of it was entered at No. 274 on 28th June, 1973. The sale consideration was a sum of Rs. 9,500. Muhammad Din, respondent, pre-empted the sale and his suit was decreed. An appeal was filed against this in which the sole question for determination was as to which one of it had the superior right to purchase that land. This appeal was dismis sed. This led to a second appeal before the High Court where the question of limitation was not raised. Muhammad Din's case is that he is a tenant and is, therefore, entitled to pre-empt the sale under the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 115. A learned Single Judge of the High Court came to the conclusion that the present petitioners were able to prove by oral evidence only that they…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register