SHABBIR AHMAD and anothers vs CHENA
This review petition was filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning a pre-emption claim over resumed land. The petitioners challenged the status of a grantee of resumed land, arguing that such a grantee does not qualify as an owner, that the grant was conditional and occurred after the pre-emption suit was instituted, and that the Record of Rights still identified the State as the owner. The Court, in its initial judgment, had held that the grant was complete and that conditions such as non-alienation or requirements for proper cultivation were merely restrictive covenants that did not detract from the grantee's ownership status. In the review proceedings, the Court reiterated that pre-emptors must maintain their superiority of right up to the date of the decree. Finding that no contrary law was cited to challenge the legal principles established in the impugned judgment and noting that a rehearing is outside the scope of review jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that restrictive covenants do not negate the transfer of ownership.
- Do restrictive covenants, such as non-alienation clauses, in a land grant negate the grantee's status as an owner?
- Must a pre-emptor maintain their superiority of right until the date of the decree?
- Does a review petition allow for the rehearing of a case on its merits?
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioners seek review of judgment dated 25-1-1993 on the sole ground that a grantee of resumed land cannot defeat the pre-emption claim of the petitioners for the following reasons:--
(i) Such a grantee cannot qualify as an owner;
(ii) The grant was conditional, made on 23-5-1975, m-ich after the preempted sale and the institution of pre-emption suit;
(iii) The Record of Rights still shows the State as the owner of the land and not the grantee.
2. The Court considered the main grounds (i) and (iii) in the impugned judgment as hereunder:-- "This shows that grant is total and complete. No doubt, it is subject to certain conditions like non- alienation, proper cultivation etc. And for non-observance liable to resumption, yet there are like "restrictive tovenants", as a plot of land given in a residential area not to be used for commercial purposes etc. Restrictive covenants attached to a transfer of land either by grant or sale do not detract from the ownership of the land."
3. As regards the second ground, it is not disputed that the pre-emptors in order to succeed have to maintain their superiority up to the date of decree.
4. No law to the contrary has been cited for questioning the law laid down in -the impugned judgment. Rehearing is not within the scope of review.
5. No ground is made out., Review petition, is, therefore, dismissed.