Law: Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (XII of 1957)

Section: S. 20 (3) (b) (i)

Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (XII of 1957), S. 20 (3) (b) (i)--Sale not confirmed because only 1/30th part of agreed price was paid before Registrar, though vendor admitted receipt of balance-No opportunity given to prove payment of entire amount-Violation of natural justice-Custodian's order refusing confirmation quashed by writ-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170.    JUDGMENT   FARUQUI, J.-The facts relevant for the consideration of this writ petition may be shortly stated : By a registered sale deed dated 4th June 1949, the petitioners purchased certain agri cultural land from a Hindu for a consideration of Rs. 29,375-10. They applied to the Deputy Custodian, Sukkur for the confirmation of this transaction under section 16 of the Ordinance XV of 1949. This application was made somewhere in the year 1950, but as the income-tax clearance certificate of the vendor had not been obtained the matter was postponed from time to time and on 9th September 1958 the Deputy Custodian rejected this application on the ground that considerable time had been allowed to the petitioners to produce the certificate which he had failed to do. On that day nobody was present on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners preferred an appeal against this order to the a Additional Custodian (Judicial) who rejected it on the ground that ample time for obtaining the income-tax clearance certificate had been given and that he was not prepared to give any more time for it. The petitioners then took this matter to the Custodian of Evacuee Property by a revision petition under section 43 (4) of Act XII of 1957.   The learned Custodian in his order dated 27th July 1960, observed that the objectionabout the non-production of the income-tax clearance certificate no longer applied because a certificate by that time had been obtained and produced. With regard to the absence of the petitioners on the date of hearing he observed that this can be overlooked, because in spite of such absence the order of the Deputy Custodian could still be challenged on merits. He, however, went on to observe that though the sale was brought about by a registered…