Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 136 of 1982, decided on 6th May, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Baluchistan Quetta, dated 20‑10‑1981 passed in Constitutional Petition No. 37 of 1977).

---‑‑Para. 29‑‑Alienation‑‑Adequate consideration for alienations having been paid and those being valid transactions under law‑‑Possession of land transferred and land revenue being paid by such transferees‑ Finding of Officer‑on‑Special Duty, Federal Land Commission against alienations not based on any evidence but recorded on mere presumption ‑‑Finding of such officer, held, rightly set aside in circumstances.

Ch. Akhter Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Imam Ali G. Kazi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 6th May, 1984.

Facts of this case briefly stated are that Abdul Hamid (deceased), father of respondent No. 1 and grandfather of respondent No. 13, owned considerable agricultural land in Tehsil Jhatpat, District Nasirabad. On the promulgation of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, he filed a declaration disclosing that during the period specified i.e. from 1‑3‑1967 to 19‑12‑1971 he, among others, made three alienations by way of sale in favour of respondents 2 to 13. His declaration was accepted by the Land Commissioner, Baluchistan by the order dated 13‑7‑1972. Subsequently on the instructions of a learned Member, Federal Land Commission, the Land Commissioner, Baluchistan referred the case to the Chief Land Commissioner, Baluchistan who also under his order dated 25‑8‑1973 upheld the alienations in question as valid and bona fide.

However, according to the new incumbent of the Office of the Chief Land Commissioner in the year 1976, the said alienations were not valid, and he referred the case to the Federal Land Commission for examination under the revisional powers conferred by paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation. Accordingly the case was re‑opened, and the Officer‑on‑Special Duty, Federal Land Commission who dealt with it held, by the order dated 26‑11‑1976, that the gift transactions were valid, but the three sale transactions were void.

Respondents challenged the order of the Federal Land Commission in a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution before the Baluchistan High Court, Quetta which was allowed with the result that the High Court set aside the impugned order as without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.

Leave to appeal was granted by this Court in order to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of High Court.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant in the light of the arguments addressed by him we find that no exception can be taken with the view that has prevailed with the learned Judges in the High Court, for, on the material produced by the respondents it was satisfactorily proved that adequate consideration for the alienations in question had been paid, and these were valid transactions under the law. The High Court was also satisfied on the basis of the record that "the possession (of land) has been transferred to the petitioners (respondents herein) and they have been paying the land revenue We also agree with the views of the learned Judges that the findings of the learned Officer‑on‑Special‑Duty, Federal Land Commission "is not based on any evidence but it has been recorded on mere presumption".

For these reasons, there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. In the circumstances, however, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

M.B.A. Appeal 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.