Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 2 of 1957‑58, decided on 16th February 1962, District Lyallpur.

‑Allotment of Ihata to person not in possession--- Payment of full price, no entitlement to acquisition‑Allotment to person in possession‑Restored in revision by Commissioner.

P L D 1956 Lah. 94 distinguished.

This is a revision petition before the Full Board regarding the allotment of the northern half of Ihata No. 85 in Chak No. 266/R.B., 'Tehsil Jaranwala.

2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties. The facts leading to this revision may first be summarised.

3. The Colony Assistant exercising the powers of the Collector allotted this portion of the Ihata to respondent Mahmudul Hasan. Somehow the order remained unsigned, but it was renewed and authenticated by a subsequent order dated 16‑1‑1956 in favour of the respondent. Immediately after this order the respondent deposited the sale price in the Treasury on 17‑1‑1956. Daulat Khan went up‑ in appeal to the Additional Commissioner who recorded a finding of fact that the portion of the Ihata in dispute had been in possession of Daulat Khan, and therefore allotted it to him. Incidentally he observed that Mahmudul Hasan had obtained allotment of some other Ihatas also, but there is no doubt from his order dated 28‑4‑1956 that he upset the order of the Colony Assistant and granted the disputed Ihata to Daulat Khan mainly on the ground that "it was actually in the possession of the appellants (Daulat Khan) since long". Upon this Mahmudul Hasan filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was heard by a single Member. The learned Member by his order dated 8‑8‑1956 upset the order of the Additional Commissioner and restored that of the Collector, giving the Ihata back to Mahmudul Hasan mainly on the ground that he had deposited the sale price and acquired full proprietary rights in it. In taking this view he has relied on P L D 1956 Lah. 94. There is no doubt that there are several decisions of the High Court as well as the Board of Revenue to the effect that where a vendee has paid full consideration, registration of the sale deed is not necessary to the completion of the contract. But in all these cases payment of full considera tion was supported by possession of the land, which is a sine qua non for the acquisition of any right or title by virtue of section 10 (4) as also of section 16 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act. This essential condition of having been placed in possession does not obtain in this case and, therefore, on depositing the sale price, the petitioner did not acquire any title in the site which cannot now be upset or modified on appeal, revision or review under section 7 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act.

4. Nothing has been shown in the course of the long argu ments addressed to us to rebut the clear finding of fact recorded by the Additional Commissioner that Daulat Khan has been in possession of the northern half for a number of years. In other words, respondent Mahmudul Hasan has not obtained the possession of the northern half of Ihata No. 85, and the mere fact that he deposited the price in undue haste in the Government Treasury cannot avail him. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned M.B.R. dated 8‑8‑1956 and restore the order of the Additional Commissioner granting the northern portion of Ihata No. 85 to the appellants.

S. B.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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