| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 353 1992 SLD 353 1992 PLD 102 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.770-L of 1990, decision dated: 30-07-1991
MUHAMMAD AFIAL ZULLAH, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR,
Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate-on-Record. Nemo.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.770-L of 1990, decision dated: 30-07-1991
MUHAMMAD AFIAL ZULLAH, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR,
Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate-on-Record. Nemo.
BABU and anothers
VS
JALAL DIN and another
Law:
Section:
(a) Precedent------ Fact that one case was approved for reporting and the other was not so approved could not be ignored in so far as the position of declared law was concerned. (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (1 of 1913)--- ----S.8(2)---Notification No.196(R), dated 28-2-1944---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Courts below had found that the land in dispute at the time of sale in favour of petitioner was privately owned and was not within any form of ownership of the Government---Such land being not exempted from Law of Pre-emption leave to appeal was refused. Ghulam Rasool and others v. Deputy Land Commissioner and others NLR 1981 Revenue 57; Mst. Rehmat Bibi v. Nathe Khan and others PLD 1969 SC 197; Sher Muhammad and others v. Abdul Khaliq and others 1968 SCMR 320; Abdur Razzak Khan and others v. Qamar Din alias Fateh Din CA. 203 of 1980 and Noor Muhammad v. Muhammad Tufail and others 1991 SCMR 512 ref. ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ: --In this petition for leave to appeal filed by a vendee, who has lost throughout both on facts and law, with the final dismissal of a civil revision, by the High Court, the question raised is: "Whether the exemption from pre-emption under subsection (2) of section 8 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act read with Notification No.196(R), dated 28-2-1944, was extendable to any local area to which the Colonisation of Government Lands Act, 1912, was made applicable?" 2. 'All the learned Courts below have held that the land in dispute at the time of sale in favour of the petitioner was privately owned and was not within any form of ownership of the Government. The High Court while affirming the pre-emption decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff has carefully examined the various provisions of law relied upon by the petitioner's counsel. It has taken note of a leave to appeal order passed by this Court, Ghulam Rasool etc. v. Deputy Land Commissioner etc. NLR 1981 Revenue 57. In addition another relevant judgment of this Court was also considered Mst. Rehmat Bibi v. Nathe Khan and others (PLD 1969 SC 197). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that notwithstanding the decision in the case of Mst. Rehmat Bibi, the…
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