Find a Lawyer

Review Side No. 32 of 1956‑57, decided on 28th January 1957, District Bahawalpur.

S. 19‑--Permission to sale necessary while grantee is still a tenant although sale deed was executed and entire price paid --Permission may be given ex‑post facto.

---

Purchasers several in number‑--Mutation proceedings, appeal etc. may be conducted by one or two for benefit of all.

S. 4 (2)‑--Member of agricultural tribe by pursuing profession of Chumars does not become Chumar by caste‑---Person described as Chumar in Nikah Register but whose relatives held land in Colony Chaks as Rajput Mattis, was held to be a member of agricultural tribe.

Fazal Elahi for Petitioners.

One of the objections raised by the petitioner against the order of the Financial Commissioner of the former Bahawalpur State dated 25‑11‑54 is that the question of the application of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act in this case has not been correctly appreciated. The Financial Commis sioner's said order mentions that the sale‑deed in dispute was executed on 4‑8‑52. While the price of the entire area had been complete), paid by 3‑8‑52, the sellers had not obtained their) title‑deed from the Colonization authorities before 9‑10‑52. The Financial Commissioner has concluded that permission under' section 19 of the Colonization Act was not needed on 4‑8‑52. I do not think that his decision on this point is correct, because on that date the grantees were still tenants, as they had not been given a sale‑deed or Patta Malkiat by Government. It can, however, be assumed that the Financial Commissioner was willing to grant ex post facto sanction on the ground that such sanction was merely a formality, because for all practical purposes the grantees had become owners at the time when they executed the sale‑deed in favour of the respondents. I do not think that I would differ from the line taken by the Financial Commis sioner. Another objection raised before me is that the appeal before the Financial Commissioner had been made by the two persons, whereas the purchasers were 13 in number. The objection has no substance, because the dispute relates to the sanction of two mutations and it is recognised that in mutation proceedings, the formalities observed are not similar to those observed in judicial proceedings. Obviously, two of the 13 purchasers could put in an appeal on behalf, or for the benefit, of all of them.

The further questions involved in this case are questions under the Alienation of Land Act and I, therefore arranged that the counsel for the petitioner should withdraw before I heard the petitioner. The questions are whether the respondents, are Chumars by caste, and whether permission should be given to them to purchase the land in dispute. The Financial Commissioner in his order dated 25-11‑54 has accepted the position that the respondents are Bhattis. They have relatives who are already holding land in some of the Colony Chaks and are described as Rajput Bhattis. I am willing to grant this concession to the respondents on that basis in spite of the fact that the Nikah registers of Maujgarh very clearly show them as Chumars. It is not unreasonable to work on the assumption that a family of Rajput Bhatti's work as Chumars in Maujgarh. A man belonging to an agricultural tribe can pursue a profession other than that of agriculture also. I do not see any reason for differing from the argument adopted by the Financial Commissioner in his order dated 25‑11‑54.

In the above circumstances, the obvious course is that mutations Nos. 37 and 38 in question be sanctioned in favour of the vendees. I, therefore, dismiss this petition for review without issuing notice to the other party.

A. 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.