1984 PLP 746 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑The petitioner, Lahore Development Authority, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated the 20th of December, 198 2, whereby a constitutional petition filed by it was dismissed. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that in discharge of its statutory powers and functions the petitioner sought and obtained possession of land under Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 It obtained the possession of the land on 22‑6‑1976. On the 19th of June, 1976, Hafeez Ahmed Khan was admittedly the owner of a portion of the property which was acquired by the petitioner and of which it had taken possession on 22‑6‑1976. He executed a sale‑deed on that date in favour of respondent No.

3. It was presented for registration on 23rd of June, 1976, and was duly registered on that date. A claim was made by respondent No. 3, the vendee under the registered deed, for compensation for the land acquired by the petitioner. The Commissioner, Lahore Division, by his order dated 17‑10‑1981 allowed it in favour of respondent No.

3. The petitioner challenged this by a constitutional petition mainly on the ground that as the vendor of respondent No. 3 had lost all title and interest in the property on 22‑6‑1976 he could not get the sale‑deed registered sub sequently on 23‑6‑1976 nor could the vendee derive any title or interest in the matter of award of compensation for the land earlier acquired. The learned Judge in the High Court referred to a decision of this Court in Ata Ullah Malik v. Custodian Evacuee Property (P L D 1964 S C 236), and held that under section 47 of the Registration Act the deed when registered was to take effect from the date it was executed and on that score there was no legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Commissioner. The constitutional petition was dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the same arguments before us as were taken up before the High Court. It is contended that as the deed was offered for‑ registration by the vendor and the vendee after the property had vested completely in the petitioner no entitlement was created in favour of respondent No. 3 as the vendor had nothing to offer to him on 23‑6‑1976. The legal effect of section 47 of the Registration Act is what has been already pointed out in Ala Ullah Malik's case. There is no bar to the presentation and registration of a deed on a subsequent date when the trans feror has lost interest in the property, for the transaction which is sought to be got registered is not one which took place on that date but on an earlier date. There being no clog or prohibition on the registration of a deed earlier executed, the legal effect of section 47 cannot be avoided and the High Court has correctly applied the law declared by this Court. We do not find any question of law arising in the case such as may require further examination by this Court. Leave to appeal is refused. S. Q. Leave refused.