| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1980 SLG 3072 = 1980 SLD 3072 = 1980 SCMR 314 |
Civil Petition No. 66-R of 1977, decided on 7th October, 1979. (On appeal from the judgment and decree dated 15-2-1977 of the Lahore High Court (Circuit Baghdadul Jadid) in R. F. A. No. 25 of 1974!BW P).
Presented By: Dorab Patel and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ
Malik Saeed Hassan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
GNULAM MUHAMMAD alias GHULAMOON-Petitioner
VERSUS
MAULA DAD AND 6 OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)
Section: 19
Law: West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959
Section: 25
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) S. 19 read with Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 [64 of 1959], para. 25-Sale of allotted land--Petitioner undertaking to do all that was necessary for formally completing sale and parting with posses sion after receiving consideration-Held : Petitioner could not rely on either para. .25 of Regulation or S. 19 of Act so as to non-suit purchaser--Case not fit on account of conduct of petitioner himself, for grant of special leave to appeal. Date of hearing : 7th October, 1979. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-The judgment dated 15th February, 1977 by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing the first appeal filed by the petitioner has been called in question through this petition for special leave to appeal. The petitioner was allottee of nearly 25 acres of land under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912). Before obtaining proprietary rights he entered into agreements of sale with the respondents (other than the Government) on different dates from 1964 to 1966. He also received consideration from and handed over the possession to them. They also deposited the dues recoverable by the Government. This payment was one of conditions for conferring proprietary rights on the allottees sunder the relevant scheme. However, when approached the Deputy Commissioner rejected their application for granting permission for sale. The purchasers' claim was that they having fulfilled all the necessary conditions including payment to the Government which was accepted from them, they had become the owners. Notwithstanding the same the petitioner refused to get mutation sanctioned in their favour and instead became instrumental in initiating proceedings of ejectment against them. They therefore, filed a suit for…