HABIB RASOOL AND OTHERS vs Nawabzada IHSANULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court decision that allowed a landowner to retain additional land under paragraph 8 of Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972, based on the ownership of a tractor. The petitioners argued that the respondent did not qualify as an "owner" because the full payment for the tractor was completed after the critical date of December 20, 1971, and because the tractor was not registered in the respondent's name under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments. It held that the transaction was effectively completed upon the initial agreement and delivery of the tractor in February 1971, with the remaining balance treated as a debt. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the lack of formal registration in the respondent's name did not preclude a finding of ownership for the purposes of the regulation, consistent with established precedent. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision that the respondent was entitled to the land retention concession.
- Does the completion of full payment after the target date invalidate a claim of ownership for a tractor under Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972?
- Is formal registration of a tractor under the Motor Vehicles Act a mandatory prerequisite to establish ownership for the purpose of land retention concessions under Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972?
- Can a sale transaction be considered complete for the purpose of ownership under Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972 if delivery occurred before the target date but full payment was made later?
- Paragraph 8, Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972
- Motor Vehicles Act
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The acceptance by the Peshawar High Court of a Constitutional petition filed by a land-owner seeking concession qua retaining additional area on the ground of ownership of a tractor under para. 8 of Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972 has been called into question through this petition for special leave to appeal.
2. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners states that .The respondent had purchased the tractor on 25th February, 1971 and only part payment was made at the time of initial transaction. The remaining amount was paid on 28th of January, 1972. Thus as stated the transaction not having been completed before the 20th December, 1971 the respondent could not be treated as "owner" of the tractor. The learned counsel has also argued that the tractor at the relevant time was not "registered" under the Motor Vehicles Act in the name of the respondent. Therefore, he would not get any benefit under para. 8 of Martial Law Regulation 115, on account of the aforementioned purchase.
3. ' The learned counsel has during the arguments in fairness to the respondent, admitted that at the initial transaction (in February, 1971) it was agreed between the seller and the purchaser that the transaction of sale was complete and that the balance price would be recoverable as a debt. The delivery of the tractor to the purchaser is not denied. In the circumstances of the case, as held by the High Court, the tractor was purchased by the respondent before the target date.. There is no force in the first argument of the learned counsel.
4. ' The registration of the tractor in the name of another person by itself, as held by this Court in Member, Federal Land Commission v. Sardar Muhammad Ashraf Khan and another (1) cited by the learned counsel, is not enough to hold that the respondent was not the owner thereof. There is no force in the second contention either. This petition fails and is accordingly dismissed..
(1) 1978 SCM R 153