FATEHUR REHMAN vs UMARA KHAN and 5 others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a suit for pre-emption where the petitioner's decree was set aside because it was passed in 1987, beyond the mandatory target date of 1986. The High Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the decree was passed after the target date and that the necessary Talabs had not been established, relying on the precedent set in Rozi Khan v. Syed Karim Shah (1992 SCMR 445). The petitioner argued that the lower courts lacked jurisdiction because the matter involved tenancy rights and should have been referred to the Collector. The Supreme Court held that regardless of the argument regarding the Collector's jurisdiction, the absence of a decree prior to the target date and the failure to establish Talabs rendered the petitioner's case untenable under the established law. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the failure to meet the statutory target date and the requirements for Talabs are fatal to a pre-emption claim.
- Does a pre-emption decree passed after the statutory target date remain valid?
- Is a pre-emption claim maintainable if the required Talabs have not been established?
- Does the involvement of tenancy rights in a pre-emption suit necessitate a referral to the Collector?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.---This petition arises out of the plaintiff/petitioner's suit for pre- emption. His suit was decreed in 1987 much beyond the target date in 1986. This having been noticed subsequently, the decree was set aside. In the High Court upheld the plea that the decree not having been passed before the target date nor the Talabs having been established, the case was covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Rozi Khan v. Syed Karim Shah (1992 SCM R 445).
2. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner when called upon to overcome this difficulty argued that the impugned judgment were without jurisdiction, because the case should have been referred to the Collector on account of the involvement of the right of pre-emption on the ground of tenancy.
3. Even if it was so the fact remains that there was no decree prior to the target date in favour of the petitioner nor Talabs having been established, this case is fully covered by the decision in the above noticed judgment of this Court. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.