PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB And Others vs Syed ABBAS HUSSAIN SHAH And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of the Punjab against a judgment of the High Court. The respondent, a declarant under Martial Law Regulation No. 64 of 1959, possessed excess land units and was permitted by Land Commission authorities in 1961 to gift this excess area to his daughter. However, the transaction was never completed, and the respondent retained ownership and possession of the land until he sold it in 1969. Upon the sale, Land Commission authorities reopened the matter, determining the gift was incomplete and the land remained with the respondent. A learned Single Judge of the High Court reversed this finding in a writ petition. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court was legally justified in concluding that the respondent's mere declaration of intent to transfer the excess area was sufficient to constitute a valid gift, despite the lack of completion of the transaction and the respondent's continued exercise of ownership rights over the property.
- Whether a mere declaration of intention to transfer excess land under Martial Law Regulation No. 64 of 1959 constitutes a completed gift?
- Can a gift of land be considered valid if the transaction was never completed and the donor retained possession and ownership?
- Martial Law Regulation No. 64 of 1959
ORDER
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.--Respondent No.1, who was a declarants under M.L.R. No.64 of 1959, had 1909 units in excess of the permissible 36,000 units. He was permitted by the Land Commission authorities in 1961 to make a gift of the excess area in favour of his daughter Mst. Fahimda Begum.
No further action was taken to complete the transaction of gift and the land continued to be shown in the ownership and possession of the petitioner until 1969 when he sold away the same, whereupon the matter was reopened by the Land Commission authorities who held that the gift was not completed and that the land continued to remain in the ownership and possession of respondent No. l. This finding was, however, reversed by the impugned judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court in the said respondent's writ petition. Aggrieved, the Province of Punjab moved this petition for leave to appeal.
2. After hearing the learned Additional Advocate-General, we grant leave to examine, inter alla, whether the High Court was justified in holding that respondent No.Vs. Declaration of his intention to transfer the excess area to his daughter by way of gift was sufficient for holding that a gift had been made. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.