| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 4837 = 1966 SLD 4837 = 1966 PLD 1 |
West Pakistan
Appeals Nos. 99 and 100 of 1958-59, decided on 27th July 1959.
Presented By: I. U. Khan
Dharamdas Moolchand for Appellants.
Appeals Nos. 99 and 100 of 1958-59, decided on 27th July 1959.
Presented By: I. U. Khan
Dharamdas Moolchand for Appellants.
Haji ABDUL HASAN-Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE-Respondent AND Seth JESS UMAL-Appellant versus THE STATE-Respondent
Law: West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959
Section: 7
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para, 7 ----Agreement to sell land executed and part of purchase money paid on 7th February 1958-Possession also delivered to vendee soon after-Sale-deed registered and balance of price paid on 12th November 1948-Transfer of land, held, not completed before 8th October 1958, hence hit by para. 7. ORDER This order will dispose of the two appeals mentioned above. These two appeals have been filed against an order dated the 15th of June 1959, passed by the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, who refused to validate an agreement of sale entered between the parties. The facts of the case are that on 7th February 1958, Seth Jessumal entered into an agreement to sell the land in dispute to Haji Abdul Hasan. On that very date, a sum of Rs. 5,000 was paid as a part of purchase money. Seth Jessumal then approached the Deputy Custodian for the issue of a "No Objection Certificate" on 4th March 1958. The Deputy Custodian actually gave the Certificate on 9th October 1958. The sale was registered on 12th November 1958, when the balance of the sale price was paid. The parties put in an application for the validation of the transaction to the Deputy Land Commissioner who recommended the case .to the Land Commissioner. The learned Land Commissioner, however, rejected the request on the ground that no transfer of land or creation of any rights or interests could be made after the 8th of October 1958. Hence these appeals. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants at great length. He has referred me to section 3(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, but I am afraid that section does not help the appellants for the simple reason that it only gives…