QASIM ALI and others vs AKBAR ALI and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed an appeal regarding a suit for declaration and injunction. The dispute arose from a registered sale deed of land which was rejected in revenue records due to an alleged violation of Martial Law Regulation No. 64. The trial court, upheld by the District Judge and the High Court, ruled that the sale was void ab initio because it contravened the regulation. The core legal question is whether a sale transaction, even if in contravention of Martial Law Regulation No. 64, remains valid and binding between the parties to the conveyance deed, and whether the Civil Court possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the nature of such a transaction, given the statutory authority of the Federal Land Commission. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the lower courts may have exercised jurisdiction contrary to established law and previous Supreme Court precedents regarding the competence of Civil Courts in matters governed by land reform regulations.
- Whether a sale transaction in contravention of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 is valid and binding inter se between the parties to the conveyance deed?
- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of a sale transaction that allegedly violates Martial Law Regulation No. 64?
- Is it the exclusive domain of the Federal Land Commission to determine the validity of a sale transaction under Martial Law Regulation No. 64?
- Martial Law Regulation No. 64
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioners claim leave to appeal against Lahore High Court judgment, dated 2-3-1999 in, R.S.A. No,634 of 1979 dismissing petitioners appeal against concurrent findings of fact in a suit for declaration and injunction filed by respondent No, 1 .
2. Facts of the case succinctly stated appear to be that through a registered sale-deed Exh.P-I dated 16-6-1970 petitioners Nos.1 to 7 sold 1746 Kanals, 17 Marlas of land out of their total holding comprising of 1792 Kanals, 10 Marlas in favour of respondent No,1, the petitioners and respondents Nos.21 to 26. On the basis of aforesaid sale transaction mutation Exh.P-2 was entered in the Revenue Record but the sale being apparently in violation of Martial Law Regulation No,64, it was rejected. Respondent No,I as one of the vendees brought a suit for permanent injunction to have the sale deed annulled. There were two sets of defendants in the suit one who admitted the claim of respondent No,1 and the other comprising of vendors who contested the claim. Contesting defendants, though admitted transaction of sale through registered conveyance deed, nevertheless, contended that the vendees were bound by the transaction which was valid inter se.
Certain preliminary objections were raised which were reflected in the issues settled by the trial Court. On conclusion of the trial, trial Court held that the sale being in contravention of the MLR-64 was void ab initio. The findings of fact were upheld in the First Appeal by District Judge, Muzaffargarh. On its part High Court also upheld the findings in R.S.A. Which have been impugned in this petition.
3. We have heard learned counsel for The parties and with their assistance gone through the record. Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that irrespective of the fact whether the sale transaction was effected in contravention of MLR-64 the transaction was valid and binding qua the parties to the conveyance deed and it was for the Federal Land Commission or the authorities constituted under MLR-64 to take an exception to the validity or otherwise of the sale. In any event jurisdiction of the Civil Court was expressly barred thus the Courts below including the High Court suffered from misconception of law by taking cognizance of the issue and deciding the nature of the sale transaction. We may refer to the cases reported as Mst. Raj Bibi v. Additional Chief Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore (PLD 1975 Lahore 408), Nasir Ahmad Khan v. Mst. Ismat Jehan Begum (1968 SCM R 667) and Mst. Zohran Khatoon v. Member, Federal Land Commission (1985 SCM R 312) in which this question has been exhaustively dealt with by the superior Courts. This view has been followed in cases subsequently decided by this Court.
4. Question of law thus raised needs examination by this Court as, prima facie, it appears that the Courts below exercised their jurisdiction contrary to the provisions of law and the judgments of this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted, inter alia, to examine the aforesaid question of law.