Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 69 of 1958‑59, decided on 12th August 1959.

paras. 15, 7 & 4(2)‑Gifts of land‑Validation‑Mutation of gift entered by Patwari on 31st March 1956‑Donor being liable to agricultural income-tax, Revenue Officer forwarding case to Deputy Commissioner for sanction of transfer‑Sanction ultimately granted and mutation sanctioned on 13th November 1958‑Such sanction being unneces sary, transfer held, completed in 1956‑Validation of transaction directed‑Bahawalpur Agricultural Income‑tax Act, 1953, S. 7.

Khawaja Abdur Rahim for Appellant.

This appeal has been filed against an order dated the 18th of June 1959, passed by the Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur, where by he refused to validate gifts made by the appellant in favour of his wife, sons and daughters.

The facts of the case are that the appellant made a gift of the land in question in favour of his wife, sons and daughters. The mutation was entered by the Patwari on the 31st March 1956. The Revenue Officer forwarded the case to the Deputy Commis sioner for according sanction as the appellant was liable to pay agriculture income‑tax. The mutation remained pending for want of the said sanction and was finally sanctioned on 13th November 1958. The appellant moved for the validation of these alienations but the Land Commissioner refused it. Hence this appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also examined the relevant file relating to Agriculture Income‑tax of the office of the Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur: The latest Act is that of 1953. The relevant section is 7 which is an exact reproduction of section 6 of 1949 Act. Under both these sections, the alienations are held to be ineffectual only so far as the Agriculture Income‑tax is concerned. There is no provision either in the 1949 Act or 1953 Act which would lay down that such transfers would be void unless necessary sanction was given by the Collector. So far as this aspect is concerned, the Bahawalpur Acts are different from the 1953 Punjab Act. This being the case, it was not necessary for the Revenue Officer to refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner specially when the Director of Land Records has issued instructions, vide his Circular No. 15, dated the 20th of August 1950, where the position had been made quite clear.

In these circumstances, the transaction should be deemed to have been completed in 1956. It is true that there was a delay on the part of the staff in actually' sanctioning the mutation but, for this delay on the part of the staff, there is no reason why the donee or the donor should suffer. In these circumstances I accept the appeal and direct that the transaction shall be validated.

S. Q. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.