Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. D‑218 of 1977, decided on 5th October, 1983.

‑‑‑ Pares. 8 (2) & 29‑‑Notification No. SLC‑3/72/834, dated 20th April, 1972‑Federal Land Commissioner field, has suo motu power to examine legality and validity of all acts/orders made by Provincial Land Commissions including right to go into question whether concession in respect of tractor was rightly granted Federal Land Commission cannot without cogent reason disregard certificate of ownership of agricultural tractor. issued by notified officer.

‑‑ Para. 8‑Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930), Ss. 19 & 20‑.Constitu tion of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 ‑Concessional grant of land for owning agricultural tractor‑Transfer of registration book in favour of purchaser of tractor with transfer of ownership of tractor, held, not a legal requirement‑Sale of specific goods in deliverable state is unconditional and property in goods passes to buyer when contract made and it is immaterial whether time of payment of price or time of delivery of goods or both is postponed‑‑Fact that notified officer certified ownership of tractor in name of petitioner, held further, supported contention that property passed to purchaser as he was in possession of same in working condition prior to target date.

‑‑ Para. 8‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Order of Federal Land Commission disallowing petitioner concession on ground that registration book not transferred to him with tractor, held, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Member, Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi v, Sardar Muhammad Ashraf Khan and another 1978 S C M R 153 ; Shafi Muhammad v. Federal Land Commission and another 1979 C L C 91 ; Habib Rasool and others v. Nawabzada Ihsanullah Khan and others 1980 S C M R 270 ; Mir Muhammad Ali v. Officer on Special Duty and 2 others 1981 C L C 627 and Mst. Fatima v. Additional Land Commissioner; Sind and 3 others 1981 C L C 942 ref.

Imam Ali Kazi for Petitioner.

Date of hearing : 5th October, 1983.

‑This petition is directed against an order, dated 20^th December, 1976 passed by respondent No. 1 disallowing to the petitioner additional 2000 P. I. units on account of owning a tractor on the ground that the registration book in respect of the tractor in question was not transferred in the name of the petitioner.

2. In support of the above petition it has been contended by Mr. Imam Ali Kazi that there is no requirement of law that the ownership in a tractor cannot be transferred without the transfer of registration book in favour of a purchaser and hence respondent No. 1 committed error of law in concluding otherwise. In support of his above contention he has referred to the case of Member, Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi v. Sardar Muhammad Ashraf Khan and another (1978 S C M R 153), the case of Shaft Muhammad v. Federal Land Commission and another (1979 C L C 91), the case of Habib Rasool and others v. Nawabzada Ihsanullah Khan and others (1980 S C M R 270), the case or Mir Muhammad Ali v. Officer on Special Duty and 2 others (1981 C L C 627) and the case of Mst. Fatima v. Additional Land Commissioner Sind and 3 others (1981 C L C 942).

3. Before taking up the above‑cited cases, it may be observed that Deputy Land Commissioner, Sanghar certified on Form LR‑VII that the petitioner owned a tractor which he had purchased before 20th December, 1971 and was in good working condition. The above certification was made by the Deputy Land Commissioner as he was notified as the officer con cerned under notification No. SLC‑3/72/ 834, dated 20th April, 1972 appearing in the Sind Land Reforms Vol. 1 (August 1974 Edition) at page 142. Mr. Imam Ali Kazi has invited our attention to para. 8 (2) of the M. L. R. 115, which is the parent provision relating to granting of concession on account of owning a tractor, which reads as follows : ‑

"(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub‑paragraph (1), an owner may retain, out of the area of land he was holding immediately before the commencement of this Regulation, such additional area, if any which would bring the total area retained by him to the equivalent of fourteen thousand produce index units, if on the twentieth of December, 1971,‑

(i) he owned an agricultural tractor, certified to be in good working order by an officer authorised by the Commission in this behalf ; or

(ii) there was installed on his land a tube‑well, of not less than ten horse‑power."

It may be noticed that under the above‑quoted para. 8(2j the owner was given the right to retain additional land inter alia on account of owning an agricultural tractor, which was to be certified to be in working good order by an officer authorised by the Commission in this behalf. It has been contended by Mr. Imam Ali Kazi that the Officer authorized referred to in sub‑para. (2) (i) of para. 8 has been notified by the Chief Land Commissioner, Sind by the aforesaid notification, dated 20th April, 1972 and, therefore, a certification made by a notified officer is conclusive proof of the fact contained therein, namely, that the person owns a tractor in workable condition before 20th December, 1971. We are unable to agree with the above contention as the Federal Land Commission was exercising suo moto power under para. 29 to examine the legality and validity of all the acts/orders made by the Provincial Land Commissions which will include the right to go into the question whether a concession in respect of a tractor was rightly granted. However, at the same time we are of the view that the Federal Land Commission cannot, without cogent reason, disregard such a certificate.

4. Reverting to the first contention of Mr. Imam Ali Kazi referred to hereinabove, it may be observed that there is no legal requirement of law that in order to transfer the property i. e. ownership, in a movable property certain documentations are to be done barring in those cases where the special law provides so. Under the Motor Vehicle Act under which tractor is to be registered, there is no provision providing that till , the transfer of a registration book in favour of a purchaser, the ownership of the tractor shall remain with the original owner. For the purpose of determin ing the transfer or ownership the provisions contained in sections 18 to 24 are applicable. It may be pertinent to refer to sections 19 and 20 which read as follows :‑

0"19.‑(1) Where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertain ed goods the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred

(2) For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties regard shall be had to the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case.

(3) Unless a different intention appears the rules contained in sections 20 to 24 are rules for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property in the goods is to pass to the buyer.

20. Where there is an unconditional contract for the sale of specific goods in a deliverable state, the property in the goods passes to the buyer when the contract is made, and it is immaterial whether the. time of payment of the price or the time of delivery of the goods, or both, is postponed."

It may be observed that in subsection (1) of section 19, it has been provided that where there is a contract for sale of specific or ascertained goods the property in the goods is transferred t:,, +he buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend to be transferred. Whereas subsection (2) lays down that for the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties regard shall be made to the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, subsection (3) provides that unless different intention appears the rules contained in section 20 to section 24 shall be applicable for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property in the goods is to be passed to the buyer. It may be mentioned that respondent No. 1 has not considered the provisions contained in section 20 which provides that where there is an unconditional contract for the sale of specific goods in a deliverable state, the property in the goods poses to the buyer when the contract is made, and that it is imma terial whether the time of payment of the price or the price or the time of delivery of the goods, or both is postponed. In the instant case admittedly the tractor in question was specific good in deliverable state and, therefore, in terms of section 20 the property would have passed to the purchaser as soon as the unconditional offer was accepted by the purchaser. The fact of certi fication further supports the conclusion that the property in fact had passed to the purchaser as he was in possession of the same in working condition prior to the target date.

5. In the case reported in 1978 S C M R 153 the Honourable Supreme Court while declining a petition for leave filed by the Member of the Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi held that the Member of the Federal Land Commission erred in thinking that since the registration book stood in the name of the previous owner, the purchaser was not entitled to claim the concession. The High Court order was maintained which concluded that notwithstanding the absence of transfer of the registration book in favour of the purchaser, he was entitled to claim concession as the possession of the tractor was given on payment of the price to the purchaser.

Referring to the second case reported in 1979 C L C 91, it may be stated that a Division Bench of this Court allowed the petition against the Federal Land Commission and held that mere fact of non‑registration of tractor in the name of owner in a case in which there was sufficient evidence on record to show that the tractor was in fact purchased by the person claim ins concession on account of a tractor,' and that in fact he was in Possession after payment of price, was not a Sufficient ground for disallowing the above concession. The same view was held in the other three cases cited by Mr. Imam Ali.

6. We, therefore, allow the above petition and declare the impugned order as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.

M. Y. H. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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