2008 PLP 360 (SCMR)

KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.

The present respondents filed a suit claiming therein that Mst. Noor Khatoon predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners mentioned at No.1 and her brother Ghulam Muhammad had sold the suit-land to them and after receiving the sale consideration of Rs.2,495 handed over possession of the same to them; that Mutation No.1555 was entered on 13-4-1974 on the statement of the said sellers regarding the said sale; that on 16-4-1974 the said sellers appeared before the Revenue Officer and again made a statement that they had sold the land in question to the plaintiffs and had received the sale price; that the plaintiffs were then asked to deposit District Council Fee which they deposited on 8-6-1974 and that when the said mutation came up for final attestation on 23-5-1975 it was declared by the Assistant Collector that even the sales of agricultural land were to be made through registered sale-deed and since the sale in question was an oral sale, therefore, the mutation could not be sanctioned. This led the plaintiffs to the Civil Court seeking a declaration that they were owners in possession of the land in question and that the order of the Assistant Collector dated 23-5-1975 refusing the sanctioning of the above-mentioned mutation was illegal.

2. This suit was decreed by a learned Civil Judge at Alipur, through a judgment, dated 26-10-1986 but on appeal filed by the defendants the said judgment and decree was set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed through a judgment dated 5-7-1987. The plaintiffs then approached the Lahore High Court with R.S.A. No.134 of 1987 which appeal was allowed through a judgment dated 14-5-2002 restoring the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court as a result whereof the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed.

3. Hence this petition.

4. The reasons which had weighed with the learned Judge in Chambers in allowing the R.S.A. were essentially that the sellers had made a statement before the Patwari on 13-4-1974 declaring that they had sold the suit-land to the buyers and had even handed over possession of the same to them. It had also been noticed by the learned Single Judge that the same sellers again appeared before the Revenue Officer i.e. Assistant Collector grade-I on 16-4-1974 and confirmed the factum of the said sale. The learned High Court thus came to the conclusion that in view of the said statements of the buyers appearing in Mutation No.1555 (Exh.P.1), the sale in question was complete in the month of April, 1974 and consequently the notification of the Government of Punjab dated 30-12-1974 whereby the provisions of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act had been made applicable to the sales of the agricultural land did not affect the sale in question which stood completed more than eight months before this issuance of the said notification.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length who could not point out any illegality in the said conclusions reached by the learned High Court and in the reasons which had led the said learned Court to the said conclusions.

6. In this view of the matter, no exception could be taken to the impugned judgment. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused. S.A.K./N-28/SC Leave refused.