SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.--- The petitioner was granted 100 Kanals of land in Chak No.90/EB, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal, under Islamabad Evictee Scheme, under the Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. He executed an agreement of sale of this land for Rs.15,000 out of which he received Rs.14,900 from the respondent, it was also stipulated that the balance amount of Rs.100 would be paid after the grant of proprietary rights. Thereafter .The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement, dated 25-2-1977, mentioned above. The suit was dismissed primarily on the ground that the agreement was void, in view of the embargo contained in section 19 of the Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act. Aggrieved thereof an appeal was filed which was allowed on 20-7-1992. The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned judgment.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the execution of the agreement was not proved, the marginal witnesses were ignorant of execution of the agreement, no receipt was obtained, the agreement in itself was forged and the market value of the land was much more and the transaction was hit by the provisions of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, therefore, the lower Appellate Court committed a patent illegality and as such the judgment is not tenable. He has placed reliance on Muhammad Rafique and others v. Sharaf Din and others 2006 SCMR 340; Muhammad Rashid and others v. Shahid Aziz and others 2003 SCMR 789; Syed Kamal Shah v. Sher Baz Khan and another 1994 MLD .2334; Jameela Bibi and others v. Ahmad Khanam and others 2003 YLR 369; Riasat Ali v. Muhammad Jaffar Khan and 2 others 1991 SCMR 496 and Abdullah and others v. Muhammad Haroon and others 2002 CLC 1419.
Learned counsel for the respondent took up a preliminary objection that the revision petition was not maintainable as it was not filed in consonance with the provisions of section 115, C.P.C. And therefore, merits rejection summarily. He relies on Sultan Ahmad Awan v. Ghulam Muhammad Awan, Advocate and another PLD 1987 Lah. 663 and Ghulam Akhtar v. Sardar and 5 others PLD 1987 Lah. 613. Additionally he submitted that Ghulam Murtaza petitioner made a better statement in Court wherein he accepted unequivocally (after seeing the agreement) that the document bears his signatures. This proved the agreement, consequently there was no need to produce further evidence. He also submitted that P.Ws.2 and 3 categorically affirmed the contents of the plaint, there was no cross-examination on these specific points thus, the statements qua the execution of the agreement are final. And lastly he submitted that the provisions of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Land Act place absolutely no embargo on agreements thus, there was no violation of law. Therefore, the judgment of the learned trial Court was illegal while the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is correct and in accordance with law. In the context he relies upon Rajab Ali v. Mst. Aisha and others 1989 SCMR 135; Akhtar Ali and others v. Muhammad Hanif and another 1989 SCMR 604; Said Ali Shah v. Muhammad Shafi 1989 SCMR 1594; Sher Muhammad Khan and others v. Ilam Din and others 1994 SCMR 470.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. In view of the better statement of Ghulam Murtaza it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the agreement to sell dated 25-2- 1977, was executed by the petitioner and therefore, he was bound by it. The crucial point to be adjudicated is the interpretation of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized that this section is a complete embargo on all the transactions including sale, gift, will etc. Without the approval and consent of the Government.
In this context he has relied upon Ghulam Rasool and others v. Muhammad Anwar and others 1969 SCMR 254, while the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Sher Muhammad Khan and others v. Ilam Din and others 1994 SCMR 470; Akhtar Ali and others v. Muhammad Hanif and another 1989 SCMR 604 and Said Ali Shah v. Muhammad Shafi 1989 SCMR 1549. The latest precedent is Akhtar Ali and others v. Muhammad Hanif and another 1989 SCMR 604. In this matter the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has interpreted vires of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Land Act in a very detailed manner and has taken into consideration most of the case-law cited by the parties. In Sher Muhammad Khan and others v. Ilam Din and others 1994 SCMR 470 it has been held that agreement to sell corpus of land is permissible but tenancy rights cannot be sold without sanction of the Government, likewise a sale-deed cannot be executed.
Further the agreement to sell is to be looked into and interpreted, in the present case, it is absolutely clear that the parties had executed an agreement to sell wherein a sum of Rs.14,900 was paid and balance of Rs.100 was kept in abeyance and was required to be paid on the grant of proprietary rights. Thus, the present document is not a sale-deed, therefore, the rigors and embargo of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act would not be applicable to the present matter. Learned counsel for the respondent has also raised a preliminary objection qua the maintainability of the petition and submitted that the provisions of section 115, C.P.C. Are mandatory and the petitioner is required to file the copies of the pleadings, documents and orders of the subordinate Courts, which were lacking in the present case. The precedents referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent Sultan Ahmad Awan v. Ghulam Muhammad Awan, Advocate and another PLD 1987 Lah. 663 and Ghulam Akhtar v. Sardar and 5 others PLD 1987 Lah.
613 are applicable to the facts of the present matter but in the interest of justice I would not non- suit the petitioner on this Court, therefore, the upshot of the above discussion is that section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act is not applicable to the present agreement to sell as it is not a sale-deed. Therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment, resultantly this petition has no merits and is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.