SHAD MUHAMMAD vs SHAH POOR
This review petition arose from a dispute concerning the right of pre-emption, specifically whether the partial retention of land by a petitioner allows them to assert a superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer over the remaining land. The review petitioner sought to delay the proceedings pending a decision by a larger Bench on a reference regarding the interpretation of pre-emption rights. The Supreme Court examined the request in light of established precedents, particularly Gulzada v. Muhammad Usman (PLD 1990 SC 465) and Ahmad Khan v. Sattar Din (PLD 1981 SC 148). The Court held that the legal principles established in Ahmad Khan remained valid and binding, as the conditions for re-examining declared law were not met. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that existing law declared by the Supreme Court remains in force until altered by statutory or other appropriate means. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the request to keep the review petition pending and dismissed the petition, affirming that the established legal position on pre-emption rights continues to hold the field.
- Does the partial retention of land by a petitioner grant them a superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer over the remaining land?
- Should a review petition be kept pending awaiting the decision of a reference to a larger Bench regarding the same legal issue?
- Does the law declared by the Supreme Court remain valid until it is changed by statutory or other means?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.--Learned counsel for the review petitioner has relied on order dated 23-10-1989 in Civil Appeal No,95 of 1980 (see PLD 1990 SC 926 at p.928) to support the proposition that the partial success of the petitioner in retaining 1 kanal 10 marlas of the land in Khasra No,1059, would benefit him in asserting superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer, also regarding the remaining land. The said order of reference to a larger Bench came under examination in a recent judgment reported as Gulzada v. Muhammad Usman through legal heirs and 6 others PLD 1990 SC 465. It reiterated the view in Ahmad Khan v. Sattar Din PLD 1981 SC 148 which is sought to be changed. It was held: "the conditions and limitations for reexamination of law declared by this Court are not satisfied here. Accordingly the law laid down in the case of Ahmad Khan would hold the field and the reference made on 23-10-1989 in the case of Mir Alam Gul to a larger Bench also, stands satisfied by the decision in the meanwhile in the case of Bashir Hussain Shah v. Maskin 1988 SCM R 1251 by the larger Bench of 4 Judges." This case of Gulzada was also decided by 4 Judges. Accordingly, it would not be proper to accept the prayer of the learned counsel that this review petition should remain pending any more till the decision of the reference made on 23-10-1989. Moreover, till a change in law declared by the Supreme Court is brought about by statutory or other means, the said law shall continue to be valid in the meanwhile.
2. Accordingly, there is no force in this review petition and the same is dismissed.