Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. D‑262 of 1977, decided on 13th September, 1983.

----Para. 7 read with M. L. R. 81/91 and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Sale transaction‑Petitioner repurchasing land under M. L. R. 81/91 under sale agreement‑Put into possession and was in possession since then ‑ Having paid 13 instalments towards piece of land‑Transaction of sale, held, valid for purpose of para. 7 of M. L. R. 115.

Mahfoozur Rehman and 10 others v. The Federal Land Commission P L D 1980 Kar. 427 rei:

‑‑‑ Para. 7(l) (b), Explanation 3 ‑ Sale. transaction ‑ Inadequacy of consideration‑Federal Land Commission, held, could not declare a sale transaction as unlawful or void on sole ground of inadequacy of consideration‑Has to take into consideration aspects referred to in Explanation No. 3 to para. 7 (1) (b) of M. L. R. 115.

Abdul Hamid v. O. S D., Federal Land Commission 1979 C L C 211 and Samo and 5 others v. O. S. D., Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi 198: C L C 1308 ref.

Imam Ali Kazi for Petitioner.

Faizuddin Nasrullah Awan for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 13th September, 1983.

.‑This petition is directed against the order dated nil passed by the respondent No. 1 declaring the sale transactions in favour of Petitioner as void on the following two grounds :‑

(i) That since the agricultural land in question was re‑purchased under M.L.R. ts9/91 and as the full payment of the price was not made there could not have been any sale by the claimant, i.e. respondent No. 4 in favour of the petitioner.

(ii) Secondly, that sale consideration shown in the sale‑agreement is in adequate.

2. Mr. Nasrullah Awan, Advocate who was appearing for respondent No. 1 has stated before us that respondent No. 1 has taken away the file from him sometimes back and was not interested in contesting the above case. Mr. Faizuddin, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, stated that the above respondent has expired and nobody has contacted him as one of the deceased's sons is in U. K. and other is in Saudi Arabia. The petitioner's interest is not adverse to deceased respondent No. 4 as in fact question from respondent No. 4, who had not disowned the sale transaction in question, but sup ported the petitioner's case before the Sind Land Commission. In our view, we can proceed with the case in the absence of the legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 4 because they have no personal interest after respondent No. 4 had sold the land and received full amount of considera tion.

3. In support of the above petition Mr. Imam Ali Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before its as follows :‑----

(i) That even in the land, which was purchased under M. L. R. 81/91 and in respect of which full price was not paid to the Government, sufficient interest could have been created in favour of a purchaser as to make the transaction valid under para. 7 of the M. L. R. 115.

(ii) That respondent No. 1 erred in holding the transaction of sale in question as invalid on account of inadequacy consideration.

4. In support of his first contention, he has relied upon the case of Mahfoozur Rehman and 10 others v. The Federal Land Commission (P L D 1980 Kar. 427), in which a Division Bench of this Court considered a sale agreement in res pect of the repurchased land under M.L.R. 89/91 of which full price was not paid by the claimant and held the transaction of sale valid for the purpose of para. 7, M.L.R. 115, as the purchaser received the possession of land after paying sale consideration to the claimant and also paid instalments towards the price to the Government. It is the case of the petitioner that after having purchased the land in question he was put into possession of the land and since then he has been in possession of the same and had already made payment of 13 instalments towards the price at the time of filing of the present petition. The above Karachi case is applicable on all fours to the instant case.

5. In furtherance of his second contention Mr. Imam Ali Kazi has referred as the case of Abdul Hamid v. O. S. D., Federal Land Commission and 3 others (1919 C L C 211) and the case of Samo and 5 others v. O. S. D., Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi (1981 P L C 1308), in which two Division Benches of this Court) have taken the view that the Federal Land Commission cannot declares a sale transaction as unlawful or void on the sole ground of inadequacy of consideration, but has to take into consideration other aspects referred to in explanation Nos. 3 to 7 (1) (b). It may be pertinent to point out that the above first Karachi case, though is a judgment of a Division Bench, but probably due to printing mistake has been shown as S. B. case.

6. We see no cogent reason to deviate from the above Karachi view. The petition is, theretore, allowed with no order as to costs and it is declared that the impugned order is of without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

M. B. A. 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.