MUHAMMAD LATIF and others vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld the decisions of the Board of Revenue and the Additional Commissioner regarding disputed land mutations. The core legal question was whether land mutations attested during the pendency of consolidation proceedings, without the requisite sanction of the Consolidation Officer, were legally valid and enforceable. The petitioner had sought to rely on these mutations to claim additional land, despite the respondent's denial of any sale. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the transactions were void ab initio. The Court affirmed that under Section 24 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, a landowner is strictly prohibited from transferring or dealing with any part of their holding during the pendency of consolidation proceedings without prior sanction from the Consolidation Officer. Consequently, the Court established that any transfer executed in violation of this statutory prohibition confers no legal benefit or rights upon the transferee, rendering the mutations ineffective for the purpose of the consolidation scheme.
- Can a landowner transfer or deal with their holding during the pendency of consolidation proceedings without the sanction of the Consolidation Officer?
- Are land mutations attested without the sanction of the Consolidation Officer during consolidation proceedings legally valid?
- Does a transfer of land made in violation of Section 24 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 confer any rights upon the transferee?
- Section 24, Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--During the pendency of the Consolidation proceedings in the village, the petitioner managed to get two mutations attested whereby he was stated to have purchased land from respondent No,l. These mutations were ignored by the Assistant Consolidation Officer while preparing the Scheme. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector. The Collector allowed the appeal and allotted some additional land to the petitioner on the basis of the said mutations.
Respondent No,1 filed a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner alleging that he had not sold any land to the petitioner. The Additional Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue but failed. He then invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court but again met with no success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The petition is clearly without any merit. Section 24, Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 stood in the petitioner's way. This section reads as " When an application for the consolidation of holdings has been made, no land-owner ' * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * upon whom the scheme will be binding shall have power, without the sanction of the Consondation Officer, during the pendency of the consolidation proceedings, to transfer or otherwise deal with any part of his holding so as to affect the rights of any other land-owner * * * * * * * * * * * * under the scheme of consolidation."
The mutations were attested without the sanction of the Consolidation Officer and this violated the above provision. Therefore the petitioner could not draw any A benefit from them. The petition is dismissed.