| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 593 1992 SLD 593 1992 CLC 200 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 668 of 1982, heard on 6th November, 1991
GUL KIANI, J
Petitioner in person. Mian Ghulam Rasool with Saleem Ahmad Faizi for
Respondents
Civil Revision No. 668 of 1982, heard on 6th November, 1991
GUL KIANI, J
Petitioner in person. Mian Ghulam Rasool with Saleem Ahmad Faizi for
Respondents
MUHAMMAD ZAFAR IQBAL
VS
IMAM ALI and 2 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)--- ----Ss. 15 & 16---Right of pre-emption ---Determination of urban or rural character of property---Location of land---Land in question was recorded as "Banjar Qadeem" in Revenue Record and had been laid fallow for some time in the past---Merely because location of land was aside the metalled road leading to a town and construction of some houses and shops adjacent to it, and presence of a grain market, a post office, a school and a veterinary Hospital, in absence of other material, would hardly prove that such land had acquired urban character, only to be pre-empted under S.16, Punjab Preemption Act 1913---In determining character of property, time to be considered was the date of sale and purpose for which it was acquired was immaterial---Written statement which was the basic character of defence did not contain either expressly or impliedly the plea that land in question had acquired status of urban immovable property and village wherein land was situated was either a town, declared by the Local Government or Board of Revenue for purposes of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 or was found "Town" by the Courts in the past---Land in question if not actually cultivated for quite some time in the past or lay fallow and was sold as a plot for purposes of construction thereon, then if it could not be classified agricultural land, same could be safely deemed to be village immovable property pre-emptible under S. 15, Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)--- ----S. 15---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Jurisdiction--Misreading and incorrect application of law---Effect---Appellate Court although had the jurisdiction to record finding on urban character of property yet, in presence of existing record, same had not been exercised correctly and its finding suffered from misreading of record and incorrect application of law---No amount of evidence could have been given or looked into in support of a fact or plea which was not expressly pleaded in written statement---Such basic law of pleadings escaped notice of lower Appellate Court---Property in question was not proved to have acquired status…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492