Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 156-D of 1982/BWP, decided on 3rd October, 1983.

---Para. 24(4)--Alienation of land--Exchange--Exchange cannot be effected with land of outsiders located outside village--Transaction of exchange made with an outsider, held, violative of provisions of para. 24(4).

Sakhiullah etc. v. Haji Zildar P L D 1978 Rev. 20 rel.

---S 115--Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115), para. 24(2)- Revision--Courts below not committing any illegality or material irregularity in exercise of their jurisdiction in passing order challenged in revision--Orders of lower Courts upheld.

Khawaja Muhammad Bashir Butt and K . A . Chauhan for Petitioner.

This revision petition has called in question the judgment dated 20-9-1982 pronounced by the learned District Judge Bahawalnagar who had confirmed the judgment of Ch. Muhammad Iqbal Civil Judge 1st Class Minchinabad dated, 17-6-1981 and had non-suited the petitioner who had invoked the aid of the learned trial Court for having a declaration and a perpetual injunction.

2. The relevant facts leading to this revision petition in substance are that Sadiq, the petitioner held 90 Kanals and 13 Marlas of land in village Habibke whereas the respondents owned land measuring 136 Kanals in village Kup Qureshi. Both the parties agreed to exchange their entire holding in their respective villages and an exchange deed was registered on 26-5-1976.. Mutation No.176 was entered in village Kup Qureshi and was sanctioned on 14-1-1977 in favour of Sadiq, the petitioner. Mutation No.504 for the exchange of 90 Kanals and 13 Marlas of land was entered in village Habibke but it was cancelled by the Revenue authorities. The petitioner approached the Collector of the District who was of the opinion that the entire holdings were sought to be exchanged on the basis of an exchange deed and he directed that the order regarding Mutation No.504 should be reviewed. The Tehsildar reported that the said transaction was violative of para. 24(4,) of Martial Law Regulation No.115 and rather Mutation No.176 should be reviewed. Consequently on review, the Collector District Bahawalnagar cancelled mutation No.176 on 6-8-1978. The petitioner lodged a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division Bahawalpur and was unsuccessful on 9-7-1979.

Feeling aggrieved from the said orders, the petitioner sought the assistance of the learned trial Court for a declaration to the effect that the orders of the Tehsildar dated 22-1-1980 and 14-9-1980 and that of the Collector dated 13-8-1978 and of the Additional Commissioner dated 9-7-1979 were collusive and ineffective on the rights of the petitioner. The respondents contested the said suit and inter alia raised a number of pleas which are apparent from the following issues:----

(1) Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to try this suit OPD.

(2) What is effect of preliminary objection No.2 of the written state ment OPD.

(3) Whether the suit is barred under section 56 of the Specific Relief Act OPD.

(4) Whether the defendants are entitled to recover special costs If so, to what amount: OPD.

(5) Whether orders dated 6/13-8-1978 passed by Collector Bahawalnagar and order dated 9-7-1979 passed by Additional Commissioner Bahawalpur are collusive and ineffective qua rights of the plaintiff for the reasons stated in the plaint OPP.

(5a) Whether orders dated 22-1-1980 by Tehsildar and order dated 14-9-1980 are mala fide, collusive, illegal and void OPP.

(6) Relief.

The learned trial Court non-suited the petitioner who lodged an unsuccessful appeal and has now preferred a revision petition.

4. The interpretation of para. 24(4) of Martial Law Regulation No.115 is of paramount importance in this case. Para. 24 (4) of the Martial Law Regulation No.115 as amended by the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1976 may be reproduced as under:-

"No person owning an area equal to or less than a subsistence holding shall be allowed to alienate by sale, mortgage, gift or otherwise any part of his holding:

Provided that he may alienate the entire holding or, in the case of a holding which is less than a subsistence holding, he may alienate any part of his holding by way of gift to any of his presumptive heirs or exchange with, or mortgage or otherwise alienate to, other owners or landless tenants of the same village, deh or mouza."

It may be seen that the proviso attached to the para. mentioned above is very clear in its terms. A cursory glance of this provision of law would make out that a person holding an area less than a subsistence holding i.e. 12 and a half acres in the Province of the Punjab can exchange his land with the land of other owners or landless tenants of the same village, deh or mouza. It implies that exchange cannot be effected with the land of the outsiders which is located outside the village. The learned lower Courts have rightly placed reliance on Sakhiullah etc. v. Haji Zildar P L D 1978 Rev. 20. The impugned transaction of exchange is violative of the provisions of para. 24(4) of Martial Law Regulation No.115 and the learned lower Courts have not committed any illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction as envisaged under section 115, C.P.C. I see no merit in this revision petition and dismiss the same in limine.

M. 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.