P L D 1983 Karachi 575 (PLP)

AJMAL MIAN, J.-This petition is directed against the order dated 2-1-1977 passed by respondent No.

2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner purchased agricultural land from respondent No. 4, under a registered sale deed the details of which are as follows : Petnr. Vendee. Area & Conside- Date of Rate No. Deb in ration. Sale by per Acres Regis- Acre tered Deed 1. (a) Ms t. 139-32 Rs. 28,000 By single Rs. 200 Sona Deh Pa- R/Deed Dhrio dt. 17-6-1968 (b) Mst. 50 ac. Rs. 12,000 By single Rs. 240 Sona Deb Pa- R/Deed dt. dhrio 23-5-1968 2(i) Mir 120 ac. Rs 30,000 By single Rs. 250 Tariq. Deh Pa- R/Deed dt. dhrio. 1-11-1967 (ii) Mst. Najma. (in equal shares). (iii) Mst. Rukhsana (all jointly)

3. Ms t. 106-19 Rs. 69,000 By single Rs. 651 Farzana ac. R/Deed dt. Deh Khij- 27-10-1970, rari.

2. It seems that after some civil litigation and after some adverse order by the Sind Land Commission, the above transactions were declared eventually as valid by the Land Commissioner, Sind in Case No. 300-LC.4/1972-810 by order dated 18-6-1972 (Annexure "B" to the petition). It may be pertinent to point out that in the above order there were five sale transactions mentioned and one of the sales was in favour of Dr. Harchand Rai. It further seems that respondent No. 2 in exercise of suo motu revisional power by his impugned order dated 2-1-1977 declared the above sale invalid on the ground of its inadequate consideration. It may be mentioned that the aforesaid Dr. Harchand Rai filed Constitution Petition No. D-274/1977 challenging the impugned order as he was also affected like the present petitioners. The above petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by Judgment dated 19-11-1978, which has been placed on record of the present writ petition. In the above writ petition it was held that in the absence of some documentary evidence contrary to the sale-deeds, it was not proper on the part of respondent No. 2 to disbelieve the price mentioned in the sale-deeds. It may be pertinent to quote para. 5 of the above judgment, which reads a follows : "(5) A perusal of the above-quoted extract from the impugned order, will show that the respondent No. 2 has not referred to any record on the basis of which he had formed the opinion that Rs. 400 per acre was inadequate consideration. Any concession made by the respondent No. 4 before the respondent No. 2 shall not be binding on the petitioner as the respondent No. a having received the consideration for the land in question ceased to have any interest therein. Nor the respondent No. 2 has assigned any reason, as to why he was not inclined to accept the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner showing the price during the period in question ranging from Rs. 200 to Rs. 400 per acre the respondent No. 2 has not even referred to the said evidence. To us the order appears to be arbitrary and contrary to the evidence on record. We, therefore, declare the impugned order dated 2-1-1977 as without lawful authority and of no legal effect."

3. We see no reason to take different view from that of the above Division Bench, to which one of us (Ajmal Mian, J.) was a party.. We would, therefore, allow the petition and declare the impugned order as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. We would also declare that any order passed or any action taken in pursuance of the above impugned order is also without lawful authority and of no legal effect. S Q Petition allowed,