GHULAM RASOOL And Others vs SUBA (Deceased) Represented By Ghulam
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which decreed a pre-emption suit in favour of the respondent. The petitioners contend that the underlying transaction, a sale deed dated 12-7-1969, was void ab initio because it violated Martial Law Regulation No. 64. Consequently, the Revenue Authorities had refused to sanction the mutation of the sale on 6-12-1969. The petitioners argue that since no valid sale existed in the eyes of the law, there was no transaction capable of being pre-empted, and the lower courts erred in characterizing the transaction as a re-sale or return of property. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether a pre-emption suit is maintainable when the purported sale transaction is legally invalid due to non-compliance with statutory regulations, specifically Martial Law Regulation No. 64, and whether the lower courts misconstrued the nature of the transaction by treating it as a re-sale.
- Can a pre-emption suit be maintained against a sale transaction that has been refused mutation due to violation of Martial Law Regulation No. 64?
- Does a sale deed that violates Martial Law Regulation No. 64 constitute a valid sale capable of being pre-empted?
- Is a court justified in decreeing a pre-emption suit by re-characterizing an invalid sale as a re-sale or return of property?
- Martial Law Regulation No. 64
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--It is .Submitted in support of this petition that the sale of the land in dispute by the petitioners in favour of Mst. Fatima Bibi respondent No. 2, vide sale-deed, dated 12- 7-1969, was violative of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 and, therefore, the Revenue Authorities, vide order, dated 6-12-1969, refused to sanction the mutation of sale. Hence, the suit filed thereafter on 14-1-1970, to pre-empt the said sale was of no avail, there being no valid sale in the eye of law which could have been pre-empted. The view expressed by the learned Courts below, while decreeing the suit of the pre-emptor, that this was a case of re-sale or return of the property to the petitioners was erroneous in law as no sale at all had in fact taken place.
2. Security Rs.2,500.
3. Interim order, dated 16-4-1986 to continue meanwhile.