NWFP Pre-emption Act, 1950
S. 16–Pre-emption–Suit for–Dismissal of suit and affirmation by appellate court–In revision, High Court decreed pre-emption suit–Challenge to–Trial Court and first appellate court determined question of fact in favour of appellant–High Court ignored statement of Patwari, Roznanzcha report, mutation entry and attestation of mutation while upsetting finding of fact–This is not fair reading of record and evidence–Ultimate transferee had to legally establish himself as having a superior or equal right of pre-emption–Held: Appellant, ultimate vendee, satisfied requirements and it was against him that pre-emptor had to compete to establish his subsisting superior right of pre-emption which he failed to do–Appeal accepted. PLJ 1991 SC 366 1985 SCMR 1425 & 1989 SCMR 119 discussed.
S. 5(c)–Purchase of land for residential purposes–Pre-emption suit against—Whether sale was exempt from pre-emption–Question of–Vendees are all residents of village in sense that it is their native village and they have not taken up permanent abode elsewhere–They arc out in connection with their service/employment–Their animus revertendi is not absent or lacking–Held: High Court has taken a correct view of situation–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1991 SC 375
S. 77, Second Group items (i) and (g) Default in payment of rent by tenant/lessee::– Suit for recovery of rent and eviction from agricultural land:– Revenue Courts competent to entertain the suit:– All Courts below recording verdict of default against lessee:– Contention that landlord had short delivered possession of land and plea of reduction of rent on its basis:– Contention not upheld:– Superstructure raised by tenant without consent of landlord cannot be compensated:– Held: High Court rightly maintained orders of Courts below- PLJ 1980 S.C. 346
NWFP Tenancy Act, 1950 (Act XXV of 1950)- —-Ss. 4, 4A and 83–Person not recorded as occupancy tenant and until such time, such a declaration has been obtained from such authorities as have been empowered to grant it–Held : Cannot become owner under sections 4 and 4-A of NWFP Tenancy Act. PLJ 1997 SC 459
S.56 read with para 25(7) of M.L.R. 115–Revision before Additional Commissioner–Acceptance of–Second revision before Board of Revenue- Whether competent–Question of–It is consistent view of Supreme Court that Board of Revenue possesses power of revision to satisfy itself as to correctness, legality or propriety of judgments/orders passed by subordinate revenue Courts/revenue officers under Section 56 of NWFP Tenancy Act as well as para 25(7) of M.L.R. 115–Obviously, question of law being involved, High Court, in normal course might have accepted writ petition and remitted case back to Board of Revenue for decision on merits–In view of concurrent finding of trial Court and lower appellate Court, petitioner is tenant and defaulter and Commissioner was not convinced about any illegality, misreading or non-reading of evidence by Courts below–Held: Board of Revenue is only competent to exercise revisional powers with regard to judgment of Commissioner, but Supreme Court is not bound to grant leave against each and every order unless it is satisfied that manifest injustice has occasioned- Both petitions dismissed. PLJ 1992 SC 472 PLD 1983 Peshawar 1, Set aside by 1985 SCMR 770, PLD 1984 SC 227 and 1991 SCMR 689 discussed. PLD 1982 SC 413, PLD 1991 SC 691, PLD 1991 SC 811 and PLD 1989 SC 166 rel. Mr. Z. Maltfuz Khan, A.O.R. for Petitioner (in C.P. 135-P of 1991). Respondents: Not represented (in C.P.135-P of 1991).
Translate »Copy Protected by Chetan's WP-Copyprotect.