1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-The judgment dated 15th February, 1977 by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing the first appeal filed by the petitioner has been called in question through this petition for special leave to appeal.
2. ' The petitioner was allottee of nearly 25 acres of land under the. Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912). Before obtaining proprietary rights he entered into agreements of sale with the respondents (other than the Government) on different dates from 1964 to 1966: He also received consideration from and handed over the possession to them. They also deposited the dues recoverable by the Government. This payment was one of conditions for conferring proprietary rights on the allottees under the relevant scheme. However, when approached the Deputy Commissioner rejected their application for granting permission for sale. The purchasers' claim was that they having fulfilled all the necessary conditions including payment to the Government which was accepted from them, they had become the owners. Notwithstanding the same the petitioner refused to get mutation sanctioned in their favour and instead became instrumental in initiating proceedings of ejectment against them. They therefore, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction impleading the petitioner as also the Provincial Government.
3. It was dismissed mainly on the consideration that the transactions in question were hit by para. 25 of Martial Law Regulation 64 of 1959 and that they were against section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act V of 1912. On first appeal a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court held that para. 25 of Martial Law Regulation 64 of 1959 was not attracted to "agreement" of sale as distinguished from the disposition' of property and that section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) was also not applicable in the circumstances of the case when the Provincial Government on account of its conduct during the trial of the suit, did not deny the claim of the purchasers and also for the reason that notwithstanding the said provision, the petitioner could not be permitted to take advantge of such plea so as to deprive the purchasers of due benefit of a transaction which otherwise stands established. The High Court accordingly reversed the decree passed by the trial Court. Hence this petition by the vendor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated both the points which prevailed with the learned trial Court. We agree with the learned Judge of the High Court that due to the agreement wherein the petitioner had A undertaken to do all that was necessary for formally completing the sale and having parted with the possession after receiving the consideration, he could not rely on either para. 25 of Martial Law Regulation 64 of 1959 or on section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) so as to non-suit the purchasers ; particularly when the Provincial Government did not contest the suit nor any other functionary of the State raised any objection to the declaration sought in the suit. In the circumstances of this case we do not consider it a fit case, on account of the conduct of the petitioner himself, to grant special leave. This petition is accordingly dismissed.