Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
PLD 1994 Peshawar 183

Mst. WAZIRA vs QADIR GUL

CitationPLD 1994 Peshawar 183
CourtPeshawar High Court
Case No.Civil Revision No,81 of 1985
Date1994-01-24
Judge(s)Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan
ResultRevision dismissed

' A sale of 657/1727 share, by Mst. Gula Jan out of 247 Kanals 15 Marlas of land comprised in Khasras Nos.1040 and 1041 situated in Mouza Manda Khel, Kohat in favour of Qadir Gul through Mutation No, 310 attested on 4-1-1982 for a sum of Rs,46,000 was successfully pre-empted by Mst. Wazira but on payment of Rs,24,356.25 which decree, was granted by Mr.Riaz Ahmad, Civil Judge, Kohat.

2. On appeal, Mr. Attaullah Khan the then Additional District Judge Kohat, modified the decree of the lower Court and. Dismissed the suit of the lady-pre-emptor qua Khasra No,1040 holding the defendant to be a tenant-at will thereof. This judgment dated 4-2-1985 of the 1st Appellate Court is challenged by Mst. Wazira through this civil revision.

3. Nothing was contested before this Court except the superior right of the tenant which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner had extinguished after the finding of the Shariat Bench of this Court in Naimatullah. v. Government of N.-W.F.P. Reported in PLD 1979 Peshawar 104.

4. Although, upon recommendations made in Naimatullah. v. Government of N.-W.F.P., the law of pre-emption was not changed accordingly yet the controversy stood settled once for all by the Supreme Court in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah reported in PLD 1986 SC 360, where the verdict was given that the law of pre-emption shall stand accordingly changed with effect from 31-7-1986. In the instant case the tenant Qadir Gui had already established his right through Court on 4-2-1985, much prior to the crucial date determined by the Supreme Court as 31-7-1986.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the tenant was rightly given superior right of pre-emption qua the Khasra number under his tenancy and hence the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge does not require to be interfered with. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch