Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 247 of 1958‑59, decided on 17th August 1959.

paras. 15, 7 & 4(2)‑Sale of land‑ Validation‑Mutation of oral sale entered on 19th November 1958‑Land Commissioner, refusing validation, not under obligation to hear parties‑Khasras Girdawari for 1957 and 1958 not showing any entry, in favour of vendees‑Mutation entry showing date of sale as 19‑11‑1958‑Order of Land Commissioner not interfered.

Muhammad Ismail Bhatti for Appellant.

This appeal has been filed against an order, dated the 30th June 1959, passed by the Land Commissioner, Rawalpindi whereby he refused to validate an alleged oral sale of the land in question by Mst. Fateh Khatoon in favour of Ghulam Muhammad and others.

The facts of the case are that it was alleged that Mst. Fateh Khatoon made an oral sale in favour of Ghulam Muhammad and others for a consideration of Rs. 40,477-8‑0. The mutation was, however, entered on 19th November 1958, and sanctioned on 23rd November 1958.

Subsequently, an application was made to the Deputy Land Commissioner for the validation of the oral sale. The Deputy Land Commissioner, after hearing the parties and considering their evidence, did not recommend validation. The Land Commissioner refused it. Hence this appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. His first objection was that the learned Land Commissioner did not hear the parties. It has been explained that, under the instructions issued, it was not necessary for the Land Commissioner to hear the parties if he did not think it necessary to do so. The hearing of the parties and the recording of evidence was to be done by the Deputy Land Commissioner, who had to make recommendation which were to be considered by the Land Commissioner before he passed final orders. He could have heard the parties if he thought it was necessary but there were no instructions or rules under which it was obligatory on his part to do so. The omission of the learned Land Commissioner to hear the parties does not, in any way, vitiate these proceedings.

The learned counsel for the appellant has shown me a copy of khasra girdawari for Rabi 1957, Kharif 1957, and Rabi 1958, and Kharif 1958. In none of these harvests, there is any entry in favour of any of the vendees. Moreover, there is no explanation forthcoming as to why, if the sale took place as alleged in early 1958, no report was made to the Patwari before the 19th November 1958. Again, the entry in column No. 13 of the mutation gives the date of the oral sale as 19th November 1958. In these circumstances, there is no justification for any interference. The appeal fails and it rejected hereby.

S. Q. Appeal rejected.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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