ABDULLAH vs HAIDER KHAN and others

ORDER

' MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.-.-The sale of the disputed land in favour of respondent No,1 was pre-empted by the petitioner in the Court of Extra-Assistant Commissioner, Timargera, exercising the powers of Deputy Commissioner under PATA Regulation No, II of 1975 (hereinafter called as the Regulation). The matter was referred to a Jirga for award in pursuance of the Regulation. By majority of two to one the suit of the petitioner was decreed on 27-6-1992. Appeal of respondent No,1 to the Additional Commissioner and revision petition to the Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. Home and T.A. Department were respectively dismissed on 22-3-1993 and 8-8-1993. Respondent No,1, feeling still not satisfied, challenged the orders passed by respondents Nos.3 to 5 in Writ Petition No,705 of 1993 before the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar. A learned Division Bench in the High Court vide order dated 24-4-1995 held that the impugned judgment and decree was passed on 27-6-1992 much after the target date of 31-7-1986 with reference to the law laid down by this Court in Said Kamal's case PLD 1986 SC 360 and resultantly non-suited the petitioner. The answering respondent filed 12eview Petition No,13 of 1995 seeking review of the order passed in Writ Petition No,705 of 1993. The learned Judges in the High Court while repelling the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that irrespective of extension or non-extension of N.- W.F.P., Pre-emption Act (X of 1989) on the authority of this Court in Said Kamal's case PLD 1986 SC 360 no decree of pre-emption can be passed After 31-7-1986 where the requirements of ' Talabs' were not complied with. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, now seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 24-4-1995 passed by the High Court refusing to entertain his Review Petition.

2. Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the non- extension of N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act (X of 1987) providing for making ' Talabs' as a sine qua non for the grant of a pre-emption decree has escaped the attention of the learned Judges of the Division Bench which was brought 4,43 their notice but they were not persuaded to entertain it and had thus fallen into an error to dismiss the Review Petition. The learned counsel next argued that the learned Judges in exercise of their Constitutional jurisdiction could neither have legally set aside the concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the PATA forums that requirements of ' Talabs' under the Islamic Law of Pre-emption had been duly made nor they could have non-suited the petitioner.

3. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are of public importance. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted to consider the contentions as aforesaid.