Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 3015 = 1982 SLD 3015 = 1982 CLC 64
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 14174 of 1.980, decided on 8th December, 1980.
Presented By: Muhammad Ilyas, J
Raja Muhammad Younas for Petitioner.

HAQ NAWAZ-Petitioner

VERSUS

TAJ MUHAMMAD-Respondent

Law: Land Reforms Regulation, 1972

Section: 25 (3) (d)

Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913

Section: 15

Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M. L. R. 115] Para. 25 (3) (d) read with Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 15 Pre-emption suit-Land purchased by tenant cultivated by him at time of its sale-Tenant, held, can retain such land in preference to all others-Qualification added by cl. (d) in para. 25 (3) of Regulation for claiming right of pre-emption-Superior to all qualifications finding mention in S. 15 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913-Suit for pre-emption by a person having any of qualifications mentioned in S. 15 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, held, must fail if filed in regard to sale of land in favour of a person having cultivated same as a tenant at tune of its sale.-[Muhammad Iqbal and another v. Nazir Ahmad 1980 C L C 1012 and Regular Second Appeal No. 496 of 1975 dissented from]. Muhammad Iqbal and another v. Nazir Ahmad 1980 C L C 1012 and Regular Second Appeal No. 496 of 1975 dissented from.                                                                                                                    ORDER This civil revision has arisen out of a pre-emption suit brought by the petitioner, Haq Nawaz against the respondents, Taj Mehmud and two others, in respect of a piece of land. The petitioner claimed superior right of pre-emption on the ground that he was brother of Afzal Khan alias Afsar Khan, who had sold the land in dispute. The suit was resisted by the respondents contending that they cultivated the land at the time of its sale in their favour and, therefore, they had the first right of pre-emption on the basis of clause (d) to sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the said Regulation. The view taken by a Civil Judge of Attock, who was seized of the suit, was that by purchasing the land the respondents had lost their status as tenants and therefore, they did not have the first right of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register