P L D (Rev (PLP)

When any tenant shall, under the provisions and in pursuance of the preceding clauses of this condition, have purchased the proprietary right in any lands from the Government and shall have duly paid the whole of the purchase money therefore to the Government, and shall have complied with all the terms and conditions herein before provided in that behalf, the Government shall execute, or cause to be executed a valid conveyance granting, conveying and assuring the proprietary right so purchased to the purchaser and the purchaser shall thereupon, in respect of the land so purchased, cease to be subject to the conditions herein con tained, with the exception of conditions No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 22 of this statement, by which, and by the provisions of Punjab Act V of 1912 applicable to proprietors of land, he shall continue to be bound". In regard to this clause, it has been observed by the learned High Court judges in course of their discussion on the legal aspects of the case referred to earlier :‑ It is noteworthy that by this clause "the Government shall execute‑a valid conveyance granting, conveying and assuring the proprietary right so purchased to the purchaser" only after the tenant shall . . . . have purchased the proprietary right . . . ." Therefore, according to the statement of conditions, by which the tenure of a Government tenant is governed, a sale‑deed is not required to complete the purchase, and its execution is probably, intended only for the greater satisfaction and surety of the purchaser.' No recent ruling of the High Court to the contrary has been brought to my notice by the counsel for the respondents. There fore, relying on the ruling given in Falz Ali v Mst. Raffia Jan, (P L D 1956 Lah. 94) which is based on some earlier rulings of the High Court referred to therein, I accept the contention raised on behalf of the applicant and find that the transaction in question in respect of the proprietary rights of the land in question was completed as soon as the applic ant had deposited Rs. 437‑12‑0 on account of the malikana and incidental charges and the same had apparently been accepted on behalf of the Government. Apart from this, the applicant had, as stated here, deposited the malikana dues and incidental charges within four months as required by the Collector. This amount had apparently been accepted on behalf of the Government by the authorities concerned on this account. Thereafter, it was obviously for the Government or the authorities concerned acting on behalf of the Government in the matter to execute a sale‑deed in favour of the applicant. Merely because he had made no further move in the matter, he could not be deprived of his right to get a sale‑deed executed in his favour even at this late stage, as he desired, obviously in order to get his proprietary rights in the land in question further assured and con firmed. In view of the finding given above, I accept the revision application, set aside the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner and order that a sale‑deed should be executed in favour of the applicant in respect of the land in question. Announced in the presence of the parties and the counsel for the petitioner. ORDER PASSED IN REVIEW H. A. MAJID.‑This case relates to an occupancy tenancy which was originally held by the petitioners and which, according to the respondent was purchased by him from them. The present respondent asked the Collector on 23rd August 1954 to grant him the sale‑deed of proprietary rights in respect of this land. The Collector refused his request on 6th June, 1955, because the present petitioners had also sought permission to purchase proprietary rights and the Collector's permission was granted to them accordingly in the same order. The present respondent appealed to the Commissioner who dismissed his appeal on 8th November 1955. The present respondent put in a petition of revision before the Board of Revenue and my predecessor (Mr. A. R. Khan) passed an order on 29th March 1956 in his favour, directing that a sale‑deed should be executed in his favour in respect of the land in question. I have been asked to review this decision of my predecessor. The basis of the present respondent's claim is as fol lows :‑ (1) That the petitioners put in a petition before the Revenue. Officer on 27th January, 1940 mentioning that they had received Rs. 3,000 from the respondent out of Rs. 3,500 fixed as the price for the land and that the respondent would pay the remainder Rs. 500 into the Treasury in respect of the proprietary rights still to be obtained from Govern ment. The prayer made in the end was that Mabo should be permitted to deposit the said Rs. 500 in the Treasury. The Deputy Commissioner, who had been authorized by the Commissioner to deal with such matters under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, passed an order on 8th July 1940 to the effect that he permitted the sale of the occupancy tenancy which should be completed within four months after the lapse of which period the permission would automatically termi nate. (2) The petitioners made their statements before the Colony Assistant on 27th January, 1940 saying that the bargain for the sale had been struck at Rs. 3,500, out of which Rs. 3,000 had already been received. The petitioners prayed that they should be permitted to sell the land to Mabo, who would become responsible for the satisfaction of the conditions of the grant afterwards. (3) That the Jama6andi of 1940‑41 shows Mabo in pos session of the land and paying no rent to the present peti tioners, because of the transaction of purchase. (4) The present respondent deposited Rs. 437‑12‑0 in the treasury on 13th September 1940 as an ``advance" for the purchase of proprietary rights of land grant held by Nur, Kalu and Kakku, to be "kept in deposit". I regret to disagree with my predecessor on the point whether the factum of purchase of the occupancy tenancy from the present petitioners was proved by the above facts. To my mind, the above four facts do not prove anything beyond a bargain or agreement between the parties. The present petitioners did not make any statement anywhere to the effect that they had actually sold their occupancy rights. The present respondent never went to the patwari in order to get a mutation of purchase recorded. Even when he deposited the money in the Treasury, he had to say that the land grant was held by the other party. If he had already purchased the occupancy rights, he should have made sure that the land grant would be shown as held by him and he would pay the money for proprietary rights and not as a Revenue Deposit for the purposes of making an advance towards the purchase of those proprietary rights. It has taken the present respondent 14 years to think of utilizing the advance payment which he made in 1940. He has been willing for those 14 years to pay malikana to Government, whereas in fact the money due for proprietary rights had been paid by him in 1940. All these matters are indications of the present respondent's knowledge that the occupancy rights had not been transferred to him. In the above circumstances, I would hold that the order passed by my predecessor on 29th March, 1956 was based on a mistaken appreciation of the facts disclosed in this case. I accordingly accept this petition for review and direct that the present respondent should not be granted any sale‑deed in respect of the land in question. If the present petitioners, who are shown as occupancy tenants in our records, desire to purchase proprietary rights, their request should be granted; subject to one condition, namely that if the present respon dent moves a competent Civil Court for a declaration to the effect that the occupancy rights in this land have been previ ously sold to him, within a period of the next three months, the question of selling the proprietary rights to the present petitioners should be kept pending till the decision of his suit by the Civil Court. A. H. Petition accepted.