Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 27 of 1977, decided on 26th January, 1981.

-- S. 3-Sind Co-operative Societies Act (VII of 1925), S. 59-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115-Pre-emption suit-Dismissal Land attached by Registrar, Co-operative Societies in lieu of loan and in execution of a decree sold by auction by Assistant Registrar who acted as a Collector-Suit, held, rightly dismissed by trial Court in circumstances.

Sardar Mahmood Khan for Petitioner.

Ch. Abdus Sattar with Mian Allah Nawaz for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 13th January, 1981.

One Rao Shabir Ahmad, who had borrowed a sum of Rs. 17,723 from the Co-operative Commission Shop Ltd., Khanpur, failed to pay it back and consequently the Registrar, Co-operative Societies attached his land measuring 191 kanals 12 marlas and auctioned the same in favour of one Muhammad Hanif on 26th July, 1972. The sale was subsequently witnessed allegedly by two mutations 914 and 915.

2. The petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption of the said land. The trial Court, after the necessary proceedings held, that sale was not pre-emption in view of section 3 (5) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act read with section 59 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1975, as it was in execution of a decree. The petitioner has now challenged that order through this revision petition.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the property had first been sold to the Co-operative Commission Shop Ltd., Khanpur vide muta tion 914 and it was thereafter sold by the Co-operative Commission Shop to Muhammad Hanif vide mutation 915. Reliance is placed on the two mutations. In this view of the matter, it is stated that it was not a sale by auction to Muhammad Hanif. In the alternative it is submitted that the Registrar was not one of those authorities, sale by whom is protected under section 3 (5) of the Pre-emption Act.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on Exh. D. 5 to D. 6 in support of their plea that the sale had in fact been made to Muham mad Hanif. They particularly relied on Eah. D. 6 which is an intimation by the Collector and Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rahim Yar Khan to Muhammad Hanif. Muhammad Hanif is informed by it to say that the auction-sale of the attached land measuring 191 kanals 12 marlas of Rao Shabir Ahmad Khan had been accepted in his favour. He was, therefore, asked to deposit by 6th. April, 1972, the remaining 3/4 of the amount and produce the receipt. It was further stated there that in case of default the 1 /4 amount alreadly paid by him shall stand confiscated in favour of the Co-operative Commission Shop Ltd., Khanpur.

5. Exh. D. 5. is a receipt by the Abbasia Co, operative Bank in favour of Muhammad Hanif acknowledging 1/4 deposit of the above amount. Exh. D. 7 is a receipt of the remaining amount deposited by Muhammad Hanif. Exh. D. 8 is a letter by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, with the power of Collector to the Deputy Commissioner to mutate the said land in favour of Muhammad Hanif, It shows that the land in question had been sold under Para 6 of Martial Law Order 241 of 1972. It is therefore, clear that the mutations 914 and 915 relied upon by the petitioner had been atttsted on the basis of D. 8 and in case of any discrepancy D. 8 shall prevail.

6. Section 3 (5) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act reads as under,-

"3 (5) sale' shall not include- (a) a sale in execution of a decree for money or of an order of a Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court or of a Revenue Officer, (b) Admittedly, the auction was conducted by the Assistant Registrar as a Collector. He is, therefore, covered by the words Revenue Officer.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents also relied on Mst. Rup Devi v. Matwal Chand (l) to say that such sales are protected under section 3 (5) of the Pre-emption Act; referred to above. In that case, sale under sec tion 60 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 was held to be a sale by a Civil Court or at any rate, in execution of an order of a Revenue Officer and so protected under section 3 (5).

8. After going through the submissions made, I find from Exhs. D. 5 to D. 8 that the sale in question did take place in favour of Muhammad Hanif and not Co-operative Commission Shop Ltd. Only the proceeds had to be credited to it. Further, the Assistant Registrar who acted as AA Collector is one of the authorities mentioned in section 3 (5) as discussed in paras. 6 and 7 above.

In view of the above, there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court and consequently, I finding no merit in this revision petition, dismiss it with costs,

Ht. Y. H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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