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 No. 29‑P of 1978, decided on 30th September, 1979.
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 22‑3‑1978 of the Peshawar High Court at Peshawar in Writ Petition No. 20/76).
‑‑‑‑ Para. 8‑Concession qua retaining additional area on ground of ownership of tractor‑Tractor established to have been purchased before target date‑Fact of registration of tractor in name of another person‑Held, not by itself enough to hold that land‑owner con cerned was not owner of tractor.
Member, Federal Land Commission v. Sardar Muhammad Ashraf Khan and another 1978 S C M R 153 ref.
Mian Younas Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 30th September, 1979.
The acceptance by the Peshawar High Court of a Constitutional petition filed by a land‑owner seeking concession qua retaining additional area on the ground of ownership of a tractor under para. 8 of Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972 has been called into question through this petition for special leave to appeal.
The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the respondent had purchased the tractor on 25th February, 1971 and only part payment was made at the time of initial transaction. The remaining amount was paid on 28th of January, 1972. Thus as stated the transaction not having been completed before the 20th December, 1971 the respondent could not be treated as "owner" of the tractor. The learned counsel has also argued that the tractor at the relevant time was not "registered" under the Motor Vehicles Act in the name of the respondent. Therefore, he would not get any benefit under para. 8 of Martial Law Regulation 115, on account of the aforementioned purchase.
The learned counsel has during the arguments in fairness to the respondent, admitted that at the initial transaction (in February, 1971) it was agreed between the seller and the purchaser that the transaction of sale was complete and that the balance price would be recoverable as a debt. The delivery of the tractor to the purchaser is not denied. In the circum stances of the case, as held by the High Court, the tractor was purchased by the respondent before the target date. There is no force in the first argument of the learned counsel.
The registration of the tractor in the name of another person by itself, as held by this Court in Member, Federal Land Commission v. Sardar Muhammad Ashraf Khan and another (1978 S C M R 153) cited by the learned counsel, is not enough to hold that the respondent was not the owner thereof. There is no force in the second contention either. This petition fails and is accordingly 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