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.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 82 of 1972, decided on 22nd November 1972.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi in Writ. Petition No. 486 of 1970, dated the 17th October 1972).
Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (XII of 1957),
S. 16(3)(a)‑No application for confirmation of sale of evacuee land made to Custodian‑Such application filed after lapse of long period when disputed property acquired by Government and ceased to be evacuee property‑Custodian, in circumstances, held, left with no jurisdiction to consider question.
Nathulal J. Bhambhani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 22nd November 1972.
The petitioner agreed to purchase from respondent No. 1 agricultural land bearing survery No, 54 in Deh Drigh Tapo Malir measuring 6.27 acres for a lump sum price of Rs. 3,850. He paid Rs. 1,500 as earnest money and agreed to pay the balance at the time of the completion of the sale. Respondent No. 1, without completing the aforesaid con. tract migrated to India. After a long time, the petitioner applied for the approval of the agreement to file a suit for specific performance of contract. The petition was dismissed in limine by the Custodian. The matter was taken to the High Court of Sind & 'Baluchistan, Karachi, in Writ Petition No. 486 of 1970 and it was urged before the High Court that the Custodian has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under section 16(a) of Act 12 of 1957. This petition was also rejected by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on the 17th October 972. ‑The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
Mr. Nathulal J. Bhambhani, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that no application for confirmation of sale has been made to the Custodian and no mutation has been effected in the present case. He also admitted that the petitioner filed an application for approval of the agreement of sale after a lapse of a long period.
It further appears that the property in dispute has become non‑evacuee property as it has been acquired by the Government', under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement)' Act, 1958, by notification dated the 8th June 1960. Thus, in these circumstances, tile property in dispute was to longer evacuee property and the Custodian was not left with the jurisdiction to consider' question whether the agreement was proper or not. The High Court has rightly held that the Custodian has no jurisdiction.
The petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer