1984 PLP 2020 (CLC)
Sahibzada Mir Haji GHULAM HUSSAIN KHAN — ‑Petitioner Versus THE CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION
| Citation | 1984 PLP 2020 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Sahibzada Mir Haji GHULAM HUSSAIN KHAN — ‑Petitioner Versus THE CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION |
| Primary Law | (a) Natural justice, principles of‑, (b) Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M. L. R. 115), 2. The Chairman Federal Land Commission set aside the order in appeal, dated 17‑7‑1973 of the Chief Land Commissioner remanding the case to the Land Commissioner, on the ground that the appeal filed before the Chief Land Commissioner against the first order dated 7‑7‑1972 of the Land Commission was barred by time. From the order dated 17‑7‑1973 of the Chief Land Commissioner it appears that an application had been made by the petitioner before the Land Commissioner on 7‑7‑1972 for adjournment of the case on account of the absence of his Advo cate but neither any order was passed on that application for adjourn ment nor the case was adjourned but the matter was decided by the Land Commissioner on the same day that is 7‑7‑1971. An affidavit was filed before the Chief Land Commissioner by the petitioner in which he stated that he had filed an application for adjournment on 7‑7‑1972 before the Land Commissioner for adjournment on the ground that all the documents of his case were with his Advocate who had gone to Sukkur as he did not know whether the case would be heard at Khairpur and the petitioner being an old man of 70 years and also a sick person waited for a long time outside but neither he was called nor heard in so far as hearing of 7‑7‑1972 was concerned. Later on he made enquiries and came to know that his case had been decided by Land Commissioner on 7‑7‑1972. The Chief Land Commissioner was of the view that it was doubtful whether the petitioner was heard at all by the Land Com missioner. In these circumstances, according to the Chef Land Commissioner, the copy of the order dated 6‑6‑1972 was not delivered to the petitioner on the same day when the order was passed and this was required to be done to enable the petitioner to file an appeal within 20 days of the date of the order. The Chief Land Commissioner has only relied upon the fact that in the order dated 7‑7‑1972 it is mentioned as follows :‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 2020 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Natural justice, principles of‑, (b) Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M. L. R. 115), 2. The Chairman Federal Land Commission set aside the order in appeal, dated 17‑7‑1973 of the Chief Land Commissioner remanding the case to the Land Commissioner, on the ground that the appeal filed before the Chief Land Commissioner against the first order dated 7‑7‑1972 of the Land Commission was barred by time. From the order dated 17‑7‑1973 of the Chief Land Commissioner it appears that an application had been made by the petitioner before the Land Commissioner on 7‑7‑1972 for adjournment of the case on account of the absence of his Advo cate but neither any order was passed on that application for adjourn ment nor the case was adjourned but the matter was decided by the Land Commissioner on the same day that is 7‑7‑1971. An affidavit was filed before the Chief Land Commissioner by the petitioner in which he stated that he had filed an application for adjournment on 7‑7‑1972 before the Land Commissioner for adjournment on the ground that all the documents of his case were with his Advocate who had gone to Sukkur as he did not know whether the case would be heard at Khairpur and the petitioner being an old man of 70 years and also a sick person waited for a long time outside but neither he was called nor heard in so far as hearing of 7‑7‑1972 was concerned. Later on he made enquiries and came to know that his case had been decided by Land Commissioner on 7‑7‑1972. The Chief Land Commissioner was of the view that it was doubtful whether the petitioner was heard at all by the Land Com missioner. In these circumstances, according to the Chef Land Commissioner, the copy of the order dated 6‑6‑1972 was not delivered to the petitioner on the same day when the order was passed and this was required to be done to enable the petitioner to file an appeal within 20 days of the date of the order. The Chief Land Commissioner has only relied upon the fact that in the order dated 7‑7‑1972 it is mentioned as follows :‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 2020 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 2020 (CLC) (Sahibzada Mir Haji GHULAM HUSSAIN KHAN — ‑Petitioner Versus THE CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ---‑‑Petitioner making application for adjournment of appeal on account of absence of his Advocate ‑ Appeal decided by Land Commissioner without passing any order on application for adjournment‑‑‑Proper hearing, held, not granted to petitioner in circumstances‑Such order rightly set aside and order of remand maintained.
- Iman Ali G. Kazi for Petitioner.
- Nasrullah Awan for Respondent No. 1.
- NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was a declarant under the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 (M.L.R.‑115) and in his declaration he had disclosed certain alienations by way of sale. By order dated 7‑7‑1972 the Land Commissioner Sind declared the three alienations as void on the ground that the same were made after the crucial date that is 20‑12‑1971. An appeal was filed by the petitioner and by order dated 17‑7‑1973 passed by the Chief Land Commissioner Sind, the order dated 7‑7‑1972 of the Land Commissioner was set aside and the case was remanded to the Land Commissioner for fresh decision after giving a proper authority of hearing to the petitioner. On remand, the case came up before the Land Commissioner who by his order dated 8‑3‑1974 after referring to the various documents produced by the petitioner and after considering the same and also the revenue record declared the three alienations to be bona fide. However, the matter was reopened by way of suo motu revision under paragraph 29 of MLR‑115 by the Federal Land Commission and by order dated 1‑11‑1976, the Chairman, Federal Land Commission set aside not only the order dated 8‑3‑1974 of the Land Commission but also set aside the order dated 17‑7‑1973 of the Chief Land Commissioner and declared the three alienations by way of sale made by the petitioner as void. The order dated 1‑11‑1976 of the Chairman, Federal Land Com mission is challenged in this Constitutional Petition. I have heard Mr. Imam Ali G. Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nasrullah Awan, who has appeared for respondent No. 1. No one has appeared on behalf of the Provincial Land Commission Authorities who have been joined as respondents No. 2, 3 and 4.
- 2. The Chairman Federal Land Commission set aside the order in appeal, dated 17‑7‑1973 of the Chief Land Commissioner remanding the case to the Land Commissioner, on the ground that the appeal filed before the Chief Land Commissioner against the first order dated 7‑7‑1972 of the Land Commission was barred by time. From the order dated 17‑7‑1973 of the Chief Land Commissioner it appears that an application had been made by the petitioner before the Land Commissioner on 7‑7‑1972 for adjournment of the case on account of the absence of his Advo cate but neither any order was passed on that application for adjourn ment nor the case was adjourned but the matter was decided by the Land Commissioner on the same day that is 7‑7‑1971. An affidavit was filed before the Chief Land Commissioner by the petitioner in which he stated that he had filed an application for adjournment on 7‑7‑1972 before the Land Commissioner for adjournment on the ground that all the documents of his case were with his Advocate who had gone to Sukkur as he did not know whether the case would be heard at Khairpur and the petitioner being an old man of 70 years and also a sick person waited for a long time outside but neither he was called nor heard in so far as hearing of 7‑7‑1972 was concerned. Later on he made enquiries and came to know that his case had been decided by Land Commissioner on 7‑7‑1972. The Chief Land Commissioner was of the view that it was doubtful whether the petitioner was heard at all by the Land Com missioner. In these circumstances, according to the Chef Land Commissioner, the copy of the order dated 6‑6‑1972 was not delivered to the petitioner on the same day when the order was passed and this was required to be done to enable the petitioner to file an appeal within 20 days of the date of the order. The Chief Land Commissioner has only relied upon the fact that in the order dated 7‑7‑1972 it is mentioned as follows :‑----
- 4. The other ground on which the transactions have been set aside are that there are interpolations in the revenue record. The impugned order shows that the entire revenue record has not been taken into consideration and the genuineness of the agreements of sale has been doub ted on the ground that they had of been produced before the Land Commissioner. We have already observed that during the first round before the Land Commissioner, the petitioner had not been granted hearing and he could not produce these agreements and other documents as the same were with his Advocate who was not present on the date of hearing We are accordingly of the view that the impugned order is to be set aside and the matter remanded to the Federal Land Commission for fresh decision.
Headnotes / Summary
Paras. 7 & 29‑Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Ss. 17 (1) & 49‑ Bona fide transaction of sale‑‑‑Alienation through a registered sale deed, not an essential requirement for purpose of M. L. R. 115- Transaction made not through registered conveyance/sale‑deed but through agreement of sale‑‑Possession transferred to purchaser --Held, such transaction can be declared as bona fide provided satis factory evidence to such effect placed before Land Commission Authorities.
Judgment & Decree
Iman Ali G. Kazi for Petitioner. Nasrullah Awan for Respondent No.
1. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 (absent). Date of hearing : 24th January, 1984. NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was a declarant under the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 (M.L.R.‑115) and in his declaration he had disclosed certain alienations by way of sale. By order dated 7‑7‑1972 the Land Commissioner Sind declared the three alienations as void on the ground that the same were made after the crucial date that is 20‑12‑1971. An appeal was filed by the petitioner and by order dated 17‑7‑1973 passed by the Chief Land Commissioner Sind, the order dated 7‑7‑1972 of the Land Commissioner was set aside and the case was remanded to the Land Commissioner for fresh decision after giving a proper authority of hearing to the petitioner. On remand, the case came up before the Land Commissioner who by his order dated 8‑3‑1974 after referring to the various documents produced by the petitioner and after considering the same and also the revenue record declared the three alienations to be bona fide. However, the matter was reopened by way of suo motu revision under paragraph 29 of MLR‑115 by the Federal Land Commission and by order dated 1‑11‑1976, the Chairman, Federal Land Commission set aside not only the order dated 8‑3‑1974 of the Land Commission but also set aside the order dated 17‑7‑1973 of the Chief Land Commissioner and declared the three alienations by way of sale made by the petitioner as void. The order dated 1‑11‑1976 of the Chairman, Federal Land Com mission is challenged in this Constitutional Petition. I have heard Mr. Imam Ali G. Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nasrullah Awan, who has appeared for respondent No.
1. No one has appeared on behalf of the Provincial Land Commission Authorities who have been joined as respondents No. 2, 3 and 4.
2. The Chairman Federal Land Commission set aside the order in appeal, dated 17‑7‑1973 of the Chief Land Commissioner remanding the case to the Land Commissioner, on the ground that the appeal filed before the Chief Land Commissioner against the first order dated 7‑7‑1972 of the Land Commission was barred by time. From the order dated 17‑7‑1973 of the Chief Land Commissioner it appears that an application had been made by the petitioner before the Land Commissioner on 7‑7‑1972 for adjournment of the case on account of the absence of his Advo cate but neither any order was passed on that application for adjourn ment nor the case was adjourned but the matter was decided by the Land Commissioner on the same day that is 7‑7‑1971. An affidavit was filed before the Chief Land Commissioner by the petitioner in which he stated that he had filed an application for adjournment on 7‑7‑1972 before the Land Commissioner for adjournment on the ground that all the documents of his case were with his Advocate who had gone to Sukkur as he did not know whether the case would be heard at Khairpur and the petitioner being an old man of 70 years and also a sick person waited for a long time outside but neither he was called nor heard in so far as hearing of 7‑7‑1972 was concerned. Later on he made enquiries and came to know that his case had been decided by Land Commissioner on 7‑7‑1972. The Chief Land Commissioner was of the view that it was doubtful whether the petitioner was heard at all by the Land Com missioner. In these circumstances, according to the Chef Land Commissioner, the copy of the order dated 6‑6‑1972 was not delivered to the petitioner on the same day when the order was passed and this was required to be done to enable the petitioner to file an appeal within 20 days of the date of the order. The Chief Land Commissioner has only relied upon the fact that in the order dated 7‑7‑1972 it is mentioned as follows :‑
"Present‑Haji Mir Ghulam Hussain Talpur in person." In our view the finding of the Chief Land Commissioner that the petitioner had not been heard on 7‑7‑1972 is supported by the fact that the adjournment application was moved by the petitioner and no order were passed by the Land Commissioner rejecting the said application and the fact that such an application had been moved and was reject by the Land Commissioner is not mentioned in the order dated 7‑7‑1972 and the affidavit of the petitioner filed before the Chief Land Commissioner. We find no fault in the order dated 17‑7‑1973 of the Chief Land Com missioner remanding the case to the Land Commissioner as on the basis of the material on record it had been established that a proper hearing had not been granted to the petitioner on 7‑7‑1972. The order of the Chairman, Federal Land Commission setting aside the order dated 17‑7‑1973 of the Chief Land Commissioner, therefore, cannot be sustained.
3. The legal ground on which the agreements of sale executed by the petitioner in favour of the purchaser were rejected by the Chairman Federal Land Commission is that these agreements were inadmissible in evidence in view of section 17 (1) of section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. It was further held by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission that the transactions were hit by section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. This Court has already held in various petitions that for transactions to be declared as valid and bona fide under the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 it is not necessary that the transactions must be made through registered conveyance/sale‑deeds but transactions through agreements of sale where possession has been transferred to the purchasers can also be declared as bona fide provided satisfactory evidence to the effect is placed before the Land Commission Authorities. The transactions in question, therefore, could not have been held to be void only on the ground that these were not made through registered sale/conveyance deeds.
4. The other ground on which the transactions have been set aside are that there are interpolations in the revenue record. The impugned order shows that the entire revenue record has not been taken into consideration and the genuineness of the agreements of sale has been doub ted on the ground that they had of been produced before the Land Commissioner. We have already observed that during the first round before the Land Commissioner, the petitioner had not been granted hearing and he could not produce these agreements and other documents as the same were with his Advocate who was not present on the date of hearing We are accordingly of the view that the impugned order is to be set aside and the matter remanded to the Federal Land Commission for fresh decision.
5. The impugned order dated 1‑11‑1976 of the Chairman, Federal Land Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Federal Land Commission for fresh decision after notice to the petitioner as well as transferees. The Federal Land Commission will consider all the relevant revenue record and will also take into consideration all such documents and other materials that may be submitted by the petitioner and the transferees before the Federal Land Commission. On the question of bona fides of the transactions also all such materials as may be placed before the Federal Land Commission shall be taken to consideration. There will be no order as to costs. M. B. A. Case remanded.