Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: DURAB KHAN VS Respondent: ALLAH WASAYAHonorable Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah
1988 S C M R 1952
1988 S C M R 1952
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
DURAB KHAN‑‑Petitioner
versus
ALLAH WASAYA‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.886 with 18 other Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal, decided on 7th May 1988.
(On appeal from the order dated 19‑9‑1982 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, passed in R.S.A. No.71 of 1982).
Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R. 115]
‑‑‑Para. 25(4)‑‑Pre‑emption‑ suit by tenant‑‑Pre‑emptor tenant had not obtained any pre‑emption decree on or before 31st July, 1986‑ Fresh decree could not be passed thereafter in view of decision of Supreme Court reported in P L D 1986 S C 360.
Government N.‑W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 S C 360 rel.
C.A. Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. 788/81).
Nemo for Respondents (in C.P. 788/81).
Talib H.Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by S.Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. 857 /81).
Nemo for Respondents (in C.P. 857/81).
Ghulam Muhammad Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. 922/81).
Nemo for Respondents (in C.P..922/82).
Muhammad Naazar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. 886/82).
Nemo for Respondent (in C.P. 886/82).
Date of hearing: 7th May, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑All these petitions, although not connected inter se, involve the same point. Therefore, they are being disposed of together.
2. The petitions for leave to appeal have been filed by plaintiffs/ pre‑emptors in pre‑emption suits/ applications. As admitted by their learned counsel, no pre‑emption decree has so far been passed in favour of any one of them at any stage before any Court or any other authority (in case of tenants under M.L.R. 115). The Law/s under which the petitioners sought pre‑emption decrees in these cases, ceased to have effect on 31st of July, 1986 by virtue of the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of this Court in the case of Government of N.‑W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 S C 360. No fresh decree can be passed in the circumstances of these cases now in favour of any of the petitioners on account of the said position of the law. That being so, Leave to appeal is refused in all these petitions and the same are, accordingly, dismissed.
M.Y.H./D‑25/S Leave refused.