QASIM KHAN vs NAWAZ KHAN AND Other
This matter concerns a petition for review of an order dated 18-12-1977, which had dismissed a civil petition for special leave to appeal. The original dispute involved a claim of pre-emption regarding a parcel of land measuring less than two Kanals. The Court had previously held that the land was purchased by the vendee for the purpose of constructing houses and, consequently, was exempt from the right of pre-emption. In the review petition, the petitioner contended that the vendee would face practical difficulties in obtaining partition of such a small area from other co-owners. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the alleged difficulty regarding partition pertains to the manner of construction and does not affect the legal finding regarding the non-pre-emptibility of the sale transaction. The Court reaffirmed that such practical concerns do not constitute valid grounds for reviewing a judgment. The review petition was found to be without merit and was dismissed.
- Does the difficulty of obtaining partition of a small land area constitute a valid ground for reviewing a judgment on pre-emption?
- Is a sale of land for the purpose of constructing houses exempt from the right of pre-emption?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-This is a petition for review of an Order dated 18-12-1977 whereby Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 149/P of 1975 was dismissed by this Court. The facts of the case are given in detail in the aforesaid Order wherein it was held that the landdispute which measured less than two. Kanals had been purchased by the vendee for constructing houses and as such was not pre-emptiable.
2. Learned counsel submits that the view expressed in the aforesaid Order is not correct inasmuch as the vendee will have difficulty in getting such a small area in partition from the other co-owners.
The contention I misconceived and, even otherwise, is hardly a ground to seek review on judgment because it pertains more to the manner in which the vendee will construct the houses on the land and has nothing to do with our finding regarding non-pre-emptibility of the sale transaction.
3. The petition has no merits and is dismissed.