Find a Lawyer

Review Side No. 48 of 1956‑57, decided on 11th February 1957, District Bahawalnagar.

Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 19‑Sale of share in tenancy‑Ineffective where there is neither a sale‑deed nor a mutation‑Mere statement of vendor admitting sale before Naib Tehsildar does not amount to transfer of property.

Fazal Elahi for Petitioners.

The father of the petitioners was holding a tenancy jointly with the respondent in squares Nos. 6 and 7. He bought the share of the respondent and afterwards, when the permission of the Commissioner or other authorised officer under section 19 of the Colonization Act arrived, the respondent went back on the sale and did not agree to get the mutation sanctioned in favour of the father of the petitioners.

A sale has to be effected by means of a deed of transfer or by getting a mutation sanctioned. The respondent neither entered into a deed of sale nor got any mutation sanctioned. He had made a statement before the Naib Tahsildar to the effect A that he had sold the land to the father of the petitioners and that he sought, the permission of the competent authority under section 19. I am satisfied that this proceeding by itself does not amount to a transfer of property.

When the transfer is not proved, the Colony authorities are justified in refusing to accept the present petitioners as the only tenants in the tenancy in question to the exclusion of the respon dent. If the petitioners feel that the sale is effective and binding on the respondent, they can have recourse to competent Civil Court for the purpose.

In the above circumstances, there is no question of altering the decision of the Financial Commissioner of the former Bahawalpur State dated 7‑11‑54.

The petition for review is accordingly dismissed 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.