P L D 1964 W (PLP)
GHULAM HUSSAIN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1964 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1964 W (PLP) (GHULAM HUSSAIN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3 (2)‑Refusal to sanction sale on ground that purchaser was not resident of Bahawalpur State‑Not justified‑Factors "to be taken into consideration.
Judgment & Decree
S. 3 (2)‑Refusal to sanction sale on ground that purchaser was not resident of Bahawalpur State‑Not justified‑Factors "to be taken into consideration. Petitioners in person. Sadar Din, Kanungo for the State. The petitioners bought the land in dispute in village Misson, District Rahimyar Khan by means of a registered deed on 3rd April 1955. During the course of the proceedings it transpired that the vendees did not belong to the former Bahawalpur State and could not, therefore, be considered a notified tribe under the Land Alienation Act. The mutation was forwarded to the Collector who on 1‑4‑1959 declined to grant the permis sion required under section 3 (2) of the Act. An appeal was preferred to the learned Additional Commissioner who maintained the order of the Collector saying that the latter had full discretion to disallow the purchase and his refusal was administratively sound as it would decrease litigation among the parties by reducing opportunities for pre‑emption suits. A revision has now been filed against this order. In my opinion the mere fact that the petitioners did not belong to Bahawalpur State is not sufficient justification for refusal to sanction the sale. There are other considerations namely whether the sale was genuine, was it in the interest of the vendor, whether the vendees were bona fide agriculturists etc. which should have been considered by the Collector in coming to a decision. Payment of due consideration, necessity for alienation and the fact that the alienees are bona fide agricul turists elsewhere have not been denied before me. The only point for consideration left is whether a non‑resident of Bahawal pur State should be allowed to purchase land there. There is no legal bar to the purchase, if the Deputy Commissioner gives permission. It may be mentioned that when the Deputy Com missioner refused to grant permission a notification had already been issued dated 29th September 1958, by which all persons who were holding lands as landlords and tenants and residing within the three districts of old Bahawalpur State were to be considered a group of agriculturists. Though this notification does not declare the petitioners to belong to an agricultural tribe within the area, they certainly belong to a notified agricultural tribe outside. It would be in keeping with the later trend of legislation to allow the alienation. I would accordingly accept this revision petition and direct that the mutation be sanctioned. If the respondents have a right of pre emption as they claim where they can have recourse to the civil Courts. K. M. A. Petition accepted.