Law: Land Reforms Regulation, 1972

Section: 25,26

Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R115)--Paris. 25 & 26---Combined effect of paras. 25 & 26--- Jurisdiction to try a F suit for pre-emption based on the right of tenancy vests exclusively with the Collector within whose jurisdiction the pre-empted land is situated---Decision of Revenue Authorities on any matter in such proceedings, which the Revenue Authorities are competent to decide under M.L.R.115, cannot be brought under challenge before a Civil Court in a civil suit---Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to examine the validity of the pre-emption decree passed by Collector and confirmed in appeal by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The combined effect of paras. 25 and 26 of the Land Reforms Regulation. 1972 is that the jurisdiction to try a suit for pre-emption based on the right of tenancy vests exclusively with the Collector within whose jurisdiction the pre-empted land is situated. The decision of Revenue Authorities on any matter in such proceedings, which the Revenue Authorities are competent to decide under the provisions of M.L.R. 115, cannot be brought under challenge before a Civil Court in a civil suit in view of the provision of paragrpah 26 of MLR 115.. The Civil Judge and the District Judge have no jurisdiction to examine the validity of the pre-emption decree passed by the Collector and confirmed in appeal by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under para. 25 of M.L.R.115. JUDGMENT SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.----The petitioners are seeking leave to appeal against the order of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, dated 26-5-1992 whereby the Civil Revision Application filed by respondent No.1 against the two concurrent judgments of the Courts below, arising from a declartory suit instituted by the petitioners, was allowed and. the judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below were set aside and the suit instituted by the petitioners was dismissed, as not maintainable. The relevant facts of the case are that respondents 1 and 2 jointly filed a suit for pre-emption against petitioner No.1 and predecessors of petitioners 2 to 7 in respect of…

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