1994 PLP 2110 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 5th June, 1994. The facts forming the background of this case are: Maqsood Ahmad, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners and others purchased 1/5th share of land measuring 1,206 Kanals 4 Marlas from Mehr Bahadur and others out of their total holding of 6,032 Kanals 13 Marlas on various dates through registered deed. Later on, during the adjustment process of return of land, it was held by the Authority (TDA) that 93 acres 1 Kanal and 8 Marlas of land in possession of the petitioners was in excess of their entitlement. This finding was accepted by the petitioners.

2. Subsequently, the authority issued notice to the petitioners on 10‑6‑1961 directing them to pay the price of the excess land worked out to the tune of Rs.4,041,50 or to surrender the same. A formal application was moved by the petitioners indicating their acceptance of the price and requesting for facility o: payment thereof through instalments. This application was allowed. In due course, the petitioners made payment of the whole price in ten equal instalments alongwith interest and in the process they deposited a sum of Rs.4,558.80 in the Government Treasury. On 11‑4‑1966 a certificate was issued by the authorities showing the receipt of full sale price.

3. In 1991‑92 the petitioners applied for issuance of registered transfer deed qua the above said land. It is at that stage that they were asked to pay further amount at the rate of Rs.1,000 per acre. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that having paid the entire sale price way back in 1966 and a certificate to this effect having already been issued by the authorities, they had become ipso facto owners of the disputed land irrespective of the fact that formal conveyance deed had not been issued in their favour. According to the learned counsel, the demand for additional price being raised by the authorities was wholly unjustified and untenable in law. He has placed .reliance on Faiz Ali v. Mst. Rafia Jan and others and Ibrahim v. Rajji and others (PLD 1956 Lahore 94) and Ali Muhammad v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and others (1984 SCMR 94).

5. On the other hand, learned Additional A.‑G. while opposing the writ petition, has argued that the property in dispute still vested in the Government despite payment of a sum of Rs.4,558.80 by the petitioners and, as such, no illegality was committed by asking the petitioners to pay additional amount at the rate of Rs.1,000 per acre.

6. I find merit in the writ petition. It is well‑settled that once payment of sale price as demanded/worked out by the Government in respect of State land is made, the ownership rights automatically stand transferred in favour of the vendee and issuance of conveyance deed in token thereof is rendered a mere formality. No justification exists with the respondents to direct at this late stage of the day to make further payment at the rate of Rs.1,000 per acre. In fact, it was the duty of the respondents to act promptly and soon after the receipt of the transfer price in 1966 issue the necessary conveyance deed. The A respondents cannot be permitted to put premium on their own negligence/default and thus claim further amount from the petitioners.

7. Mian M. War Yasin, Advocate, learned counsel for the applicants in C.M. No. 128 of 1993, with a view to seek impleadment of the applicants as respondents in the writ petition, has argued that they were in part possession of the suit land and they had the right of return against the Thai Development Authority, which has yet to be satisfied. According to him, this right accrued to the applicants in 1951 and they applied in 1991 to the EA.C.O. for adjustment of part of the disputed land measuring 112 Kanals in their favour. I am afraid, this application has no merit. The applicants cannot be permitted to lay their hands on any part of the disputed land in 1991, ownership rights whereof have already devolved/vested in favour of the writ petitions as far back as in 1966 by operation of law. The C.M. is rejected.

8. For what has been said above, this writ petition is accepted and the impugned order, whereby the demand for additional amount at the rate of Rs.1,000 per acre has been made, is declared to be without lawful authority. No costs.

9. Before parting with this judgment, it needs to be mentioned that the claim of the applicants in the aforesaid C.M. for adjustment of some land owned by the T.DA. in lieu of their alleged right has to be looked into by the respondents. The applicants may again, if so advised, move a fresh application before the competent authority for grant of relief. In case such an application is made, it shall be attended to and disposed of in accordance with law. AA./G/222/L Order accordingly.