Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 1386 of 1980, decided on 3rd September, 1985.

(Against the Judgment and order, dated 18-8-1980 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in W.P. No. 774 of 1977).

---Arts. 185(3) & 199--Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R. 115], para. 7--Constitutional jurisdiction--Alienation of land--Inadequate consideration--Transaction whether valid anti bona fide--Dispute between declarant and alienees--Inadequacy of consideration whether by itself could be a ground sufficient for refusal to validate transaction of sale- Plausible reason given for apparent inadequacy of consideration--Grounds raised for protecting sale being relatable to facts which were considered by competent authority, could not be re-examined in Constitutional jurisdiction--High Court's order refusing interference being unexception able, leave to appeal refused.

Mst. Zuhran Khatoon and 8 others v. The Member, Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi 1985 S C M R 315; Mst. Raj Bibi and 4 others v. Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others P L D 1975 Lah. 408 and Mst. Karam Illahi v. The State P L D 1974 Rev. (Pb.) 17 ref.

---Arts. 185(3) & 199--Leave to appeal, grant of--Legal grounds taken up in Constitutional petition before High Court not pressed or argued nor dealt with in judgment of High Court--Petitioner not permitted to resurrect those grounds before Supreme Court--Leave to appeal refused.

---Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal, grant of--Legal objections raised having already been dealt with elaborately in other judgments of Supreme Court and those decisions not supporting contentions of petitioners on purely legal issues--No question of law requiring further consideration being involved--Leave to appeal refused.

Iftikhar Ali Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 3rd September, 1985.

The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 18th of August, 1980 whereby a Constitutional petition filed by them against a suo motu revisional order of the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, dated 24-12-1976 was dismissed.

The petitioner No.3 Hasan Mahmood is a declarant under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. He had by means of a Mutation No.501 attested on 16-11-1967 alienated land measuring 799 Kanals and one Marla situate in village Sheikhwan, Tehsil and District Rahimyar Khan for a sum of Rs.55,000 in favour of other two petitioners. In his declaration he reflected this alienation. In the first instance, it was scrutinised by the Deputy Land Commissioner who submitted a report on the basis of which the Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division held that "the vendees are in physical possession of the land. They are paying the land revenue and getting Batai. An adequate consideration has been paid and the vendees are not related to the declarant. The transaction is bona fide and is held valid". Subsequently the Chairman, Federal Land Commission on the proceedings initiated by Head of the Inspection Team suo motu revised the order setting aside the order of the Land Commissioner and refused to validate the transaction.

Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners invoked the Consti tutional jurisdiction of the High Court raising a number of legal and factual points. It, however, appears from the judgment of the Lahore High Court that the only point argued related to the adequacy of the consideration for which the land had been sold. It was disposed of in the following words:-

"The land had been sold at the rate of Rs.550 per Acre when average sale price worked on the basis of the sale prices entered in mutations sanctioned during the last five years came to Rs.1,170 per Acre. Apart from the fact that existence of cordial relationship was not established before the respondent Commissioner nor any proof thereof by authentic material has been laid before this Court it does not appear in the natural course of events that a person would sell away landed property, even to the persons from whom he had purchased earlier a few years. back at half of prevalent price thereby suffering a loss, as in the instant case, of no less than Rs.62,000. As the perusal of the order of the Land Commissioner discloses that reasons for charging less price on the basis of existence of cordial relations between the parties to the sale were not placed before the Land Commissioner whose conclusion that the sale consideration which passed hands was adequate indicates that it was the adequacy of the sale price simpliciter that was invoked to get the transaction declared as bona fide and genuine. The price having been found to be on the much lower side of the value of the land it was legitimate for the Commission to hold that the land having been transferred on throw away price the sale in question was not genuine and that the order of the Land Commissioner was not proper and legal. The finding of the Commission and the impugned order based thereon cannot be taken exception of.",

The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Iftikhar Ali Sheikh, Advocate contended that inadequacy of the consideration by itself could not be a ground sufficient for refusal to validate a transaction of sale.

Further, it was stated that a plausible reason had been given for the apparent inadequacy of the consideration. It was that earlier the same land had been purchased from the same vendees for the same price for a specified purpose and the purpose having been served by obtaining another more suitable land, it was not a case of sale simpliciter but one of restoration of the land to the relative who had earlier sold it there being no change in the price. He has also taken up legal grounds which were taken up in the Constitutional petition before the High Court but were not argued and were not for that reason dealt with in the judgment of the High Court.

The grounds raised by the petitioners for protecting the sale are all relatable to facts. All these facts have been considered by the competent authority. The High Court too thought that such questions of fact could not be re-examined in Constitutional jurisdiction. We consider that the High Court has taken a correct view on such questions of fa4t.

As regards the legal objections which were taken up in the constitutional petition and have been repeated in the petition for leave to appeal, as these were not argued or pressed at the time of hearing before the High Court and have not been dealt with in the judgment, it would be not proper to allow the petitioners to resurrect them at this stage. Besides, the legal objections raised have already been dealt with by this Court in other judgments more elaborately and those decisions do not support the contention of the petitioners on the purely legal issues.

We further find that such dispute, between the declarant and the alienees can be taken care of in the manner provided in the case of Mst. Zuhran Khatoon and 8 others v. The Member, Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi 1985 S C M R 315 in the following words:-

"Notwithstanding the question of jurisdiction involved, the appeals filed by alienees namely C.As. 78 to 99 of 1983 shall in any case fail. The learned Judges held in these cases: "that the vendees are not the persons aggrieved as the proceedings under the Land Reforms Regulation are only for the purpose of ascertaining the holdings of the declarants so as to resume excess land, if any. There is no dispute between the declarants/veneers and the vendees, as none of them disputes the actual fact of the transactions. Consequently so far as they are concerned, the transactions may be effective. Reference be made to Mst. Raj Bibi and 4 others v. Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others P L D 1975 Lah. 408. In this view of the matter, the petitions filed by the vendees may be dismissed for the reason that they are not persons aggrieved". Apart from the question as to whether the vendees are aggrieved persons for purpose of exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court it needs to be observed that vis-a-vis the Land Commission Authorities also they do not seem to have suffered any loss in so far as their own interest as distinguished from that of the alienors declarants are concerned. Similar view was expressed in Mst. Karam Illahi v. The State P L D 1974 Rev. Pb. 17. The argument by the alienees/appellants that the alienor when exercising choice might include the area alienated in the surrendered land is of no force. The alienees can, if the transaction is otherwise lawful and effective resist such an act of the alienor before the Land Commission Authorities so as to compel him to surrender other than the so alienated land. It is for that reason, it seems, that the alienors have not been impleaded as parties in these cases by the appellants /alienees. We in the peculiar circumstances of these cases leave the matter at that without any further comment and dismiss Appeals Nos. 78 and 83 to 99 of 1983 accordingly with no order as to costs".

We find that the petition raises no such question of law as may, require further consideration and leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. The alienees are, however, free to seek their relief in the matter of protecting the sale in their favour as against the declarant.

M.I. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.