Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Revision No. 140 of 1958‑59, decided on 22nd September 1959.
paras. 7 & 15‑Sale of land obtained under Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme in 1954‑Custodian's "no objection certificate" obtained on 30th April 1959‑Held, sale was not complete before imposition of Martial Law for want of no objection certificate‑Orders of officers below refusing validation of sale, not interfered.
Ch. Nazir Ahmad Bajwa for Petitioner.
This revision has been filed against an order, dated the 12th August 1959, passed by the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, whereby he rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, who had refused to validate the alleged sale of the land in question.
'The facts of the case are that the petitioner is alleged to have sold an area of 234 acres of land in villages Jaidwali and Khokharwali, District Sialkot, in 1954. The mutations could not be sanctioned because the necessary "No Objection Certificate" had not been obtained from the Deputy Custodian. This certificate was necessary because the petitioner had got this land under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme as a refugee claimant from East Punjab. The petitioner mentioned this sale in his Forms LC‑I and LC‑II which were disposed of by Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad. The Deputy Land Commissioner refused to validate the sale. The petitioner went in appeal to the Land Commissioner. His appeal was dismissed. Hence this revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has referred me to section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act and section 18 of the Specific Relief Act. I am afraid neither of the' two provisions of law mentioned above helps the petitioner. The sale could not be complete without the sanction of the competent authority: This sanction was obtained only on the 30th of April 1959, long after the imposition of Martial Law. It is thus clear that before Martial Law was imposed the transaction of sale was not complete. In these circumstances no interference is justified with the concurrent findings of the Deputy Land Commissioner and the Land Commissioner. The revision fails and is dismissed accordingly.
S. Q. Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer