1986 PLP 1054 (CLC)

‑‑‑Para. 29‑‑Extinguishment of title‑‑Subsequent mutation of sale‑‑Title of vendors in respect of land in question sold to petitioners was already extinguished by competent Authorities‑‑No subsequent mutation of sale in respect of that land on behalf of vendors, held, could be sanctioned in favour of petitioners /subsequent vendees in circumstance s‑‑Petition dismissed in circumstances. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑In exercise of suo motu powers under para. 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, the Member, Federal Land Commission declared void Mutation No. 89 of village Moonda, Tehsil and District Jhang whereby some land was sold in favour of Nazar Hussain, Muhammad Nawaz and Faiz Ullah on 11‑10‑1971. This is, vide order, dated 1‑6‑1976. The case of the petitioners is that they purchased some land measuring 620 Kanals 9 Marlas from the vendees on 2‑7‑1974 for which mutation was sanctioned in their favour on 8‑12‑1976. When came to know of the aforesaid order by which their ultimate predecessor‑in‑interest's title was extinguished, they filed a review application but the same was said to be dismissed, hence this Constitutional petition filed on 3‑7‑1983.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioners and their vendor's title has been extinguished without notice to them, therefore, the impugned order being contrary to the principles of natural justice is liable to be declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect,

3. The learned counsel appearing for the Federal Land Commission have submitted that the petitioners' vendors' title was extinguished by the Federal Land Commission on 1‑6‑1976, therefore, they could not pass any title to the petitioners on 8‑12‑1976. Secondly, it is contended that the petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches as the impugned order was passed on 8‑12‑1976 and the writ petition was filed on 3‑7‑1983 after a long delay of seven years. The explanation that any review application was filed or that was dismissed, it was submitted, there is nothing on the record to sustain that. Besides that too was allegedly filed after seven years.

4. In view of the circumstances that the title of the vendors of the petitioners was extinguished on 1‑6‑1976, no mutation of sale on their behalf could be sanctioned in favour of the petitioners on 8‑12‑1976. The contention that sale had taken place earlier on 2‑7‑1974 is a matter between the petitioners and their vendors. The sale being admittedly oral and not having been given effect to in public record, the authorities could not be expected to have knowledge of what had been passing between private parties. Therefore, they acted not wrongly or illegally to suffer annulment of their orders duly passed. Explanation of long delay of seven years is also without basis and substance.

3. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed with costs. H. B. T. Petition dismissed.