Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 1739 2004 SLD 1739 2004 CLC 240
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1317/1) of - 1998, decision dated: 16-10-2003.
MRS. FAKHAR-UN-NISA KHOKHAR, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

WILAYAT KHAN-

VS

MUHAMMAD SHARIF through Mst. Irshad Bibi and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)-------S. 13---Right of pre-emption, exercise of---Principles---Such right cannot be exercised unless and until the pre-emptor has performed the ceremony of Talb-e-Muwathibat immediately on hearing the sale---Even a short delay cannot be excused. Muhammad Ramzan v. Lal Khan 1995 SCMR 1510 ref. (b) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S. 39---Entry in Register of Mutations---Not a proof of transfer---Such entry does not confer any title .as the mutation in favour of a person is not a conclusive evidence of transfer of land to such person. (c) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)--- ----Ss. 13 & 30---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.39---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.117 & 120---Right of pre­emption, exercise of---Limitation---Knowledge of attestation of mutation---Onus to prove---Scope---Where mutation in question had found its way in the Revenue Record, the burden of proof that the persons affected by it were unaware either of the attestation of mutation or of subsequent entries in the Revenue Record would heavily lie on the party asserting such facts. (d) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)--- ----Ss. 13 & 31 --- Pre-emption suit --- Talb-e-Muwathibat --- Proof --- Notice issued by Revenue Authorities---Evidence of most material witness about Talb-e-Muwathibat was full of contradictions as such the evidence was not trustworthy and was not relied upon by the Trial Court ---Pre-emptor was co-sharer in the same Khata in the land---Contention of the pre­ emptor was that no notice of attestation of mutation was given to public at large by the Revenue Authorities, therefore, the sale came to his knowledge through informant---Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court but the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and the suit was decreed--­ Validity ---Pre-emptor being a co-sharer in the same Khata of disputed land, it was not possible that he remained ignorant about the attestation of mutation ---Pre-emptor had to prove that he made Talb within the acquired time as envisaged in SA3, Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991---Pre­ emptor failed to produce reliable, true and trustworthy evidence…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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