' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through this petition under section 11 of the Undesirable Cooperative Societies Act, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 28-9-2007 passed by the Chairman, .
P.C.B.L. Through which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the land measuring 122 Kanals, 18 Marlas situated in village Ghannian Tehsil Kamoki District Gujranwala had been purchased by the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.70,00,000 through an agreement to sell dated 13-11-1990 from Muhammad Yousaf etc. And Rs.40,00,000 were paid in advance by the petitioner to the vendors mentioned in the agreement to sell while Rs.30,00,000 were to be paid by the petitioner to the vendors at the time of execution of registered sale-deed. It is submitted that the last date for execution of registered, sale-deed was fixed as 13-3-1991 and a condition was also imposed in the said agreement that possession of the same was being handed over to the petitioner, who could get the sale-deed executed in his own name or in the name of any other person to whom he liked. The petitioner had been operating his Account No.1805 got opened with respondent No.3 i.e. N.I.C.F.C.
And the petitioner was in the need of financial facility for which he was short of Rs.15,00,000. So he entered into a contract with the Corporation in order to get the financial facility of Rs.15,00,000.
Consequently an agreement dated 7-3-1991 was executed between the petitioner and the Corporation for specific performance regarding the land in dispute which the petitioner had purchased for Rs.70,00,000. The petitioner got executed registered sale-deed in the name of Corporation vide Document No.514 dated 10-3-1991 and Bahi No.1 with the Sub-Registrar Kamoki.
The petitioner moved an application before the Chairman, P.C.B.L., Lahore that the above-said land was owned and possessed by him as he had purchased the same through an agreement dated 13-11-1990 executed in favour of the petitioner and the total consideration amount was settled Rs.70,00,000 out of which Rs.40,00,000 had already been paid by the petitioner to the original owners and the last date for completion of the transaction was 13-3-1991, but he could not arrange for the payment of the remaining amount of Rs.30,00,000. As he was an account-holder of N.I.C.F.C.
And short amount of Rs.15,00,000 out of Rs.30,00,000, the petitioner got the sale-deed executed in favour of N.I.C.F.C. As Benami transaction, but actually the land belonged to him. The petitioner requested for issuance of NOC and execution of sale-deed in his favour. The P.C.B.L. Through the impugned order has rejected the claim of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is continuously in possession of the disputed land without any interruption and the Revenue Record supports the claim of the petitioner, hence the finding arrived at by the P.C.B.L. Is liable to be set aside and the case may be remanded to P.C.B.L. As the decision has been made without affording an opportunity of producing the evidence in support of his claim by the petitioner. Relies upon Iqbal Haider and 3 others v.
P.C.B.L. Through Chairman and 14 others 2006 YLR 910 and Kh. Zia Ullah and 5 others v. P.C.B.L.
Through Chairman and 3 others 2006 YLR 924 in support of his contentions and contends that the evidence was necessary to be recorded after framing of the issues. It is further contended that the Manager of the defunct Corporation, namely, Rana Muhammad Sarwar has reported to the P.C.B.L.
That the petitioner was the actual owner of the disputed land and it was a Benami transaction, who also recommended the case of the petitioner, but in spite of that the respondent has rejected his claim on surmises and conjectures.
4. Learned counsel for the P.C.B.L. Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan has opposed this petition on the ground that sale-deed had been executed in favour of the N.I.C.F.C. And the record of the said defunct Corporation does not support the petitioner's claim for the payment of Rs.1.5 million by the N.I.C.F.C.. It is also contended that there is no evidence on the record to show that the sale-deed was actually a Benami transaction and payment was not made by the N.I.C.F.C., but the petitioner made it. It is also contended that presumption of truth is attached to the registered sale-deed and oral statement of the petitioner is not sufficient to believe that the petitioner had made the payment and he was the actual buyer. Also contended that it is quite easy to prepare an unregistered agreement to sell and the said agreement to sell also shows that without taking the possession the petitioner had paid more than half amount i.e. Rs.40,00,000 out of Rs.70 lacs without any receipt from the original owner and the petition may be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order as also the documents attached with this petition. The petitioner has raised the claim only on the basis of agreement to sell. It is well-settled principle of law that the agreement to sell does not confer any title. Even otherwise after the perusal of the agreement it is found doubtful that the petitioner had purchased the land for a total consideration of Rs.70 lac and he made payment of Rs.40 lac to the original owners without taking the possession thereof as per agreement to sell and if the petitioner was already in possession of the property, this fact was not got mentioned in the agreement to sell.
It is strange that the possession was not delivered to the petitioner in spite of the fact that Rs.40 lac had allegedly been paid by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner during arguments has claimed that the petitioner had been inducted in possession of land since from Kharif 1990 and is in continuous possession of the land. The possibility cannot be ruled out for claiming ownership of the said property an ante-dated agreement to sell has been forged to grab the said property which had been transferred in the name of N.I.C.F.C. Through registered sale-deed.
6. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Manager of the defunct Corporation is supporting the claim of the petitioner is concerned, it has been denied by the learned counsel for the respondent and after perusal of the record it is informed that only a resolution had been passed that it was a Benami transaction and the manager was authorized for entering into any Benami transaction whereas the sale-deed discloses that the said property had been purchased in the name of N.I.C.F.C., but the record and ledger do not support the contention of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner that the sale-deed had been executed in favour of N.I.C.F.C. As Benami transaction and the said Corporation only paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000 is nowhere mentioned in the record of N.I.C.F.C. The oral assertion of the petitioner merely supported by the ex-manager without any documentary evidence, who had subsequently joined hands in numerous cases with the B fraudulent persons to grab the property of the Undesirable Cooperative Societies cannot be given any importance over the registered document. As regards contention of the learned 'counsel for the petitioner that the evidence was not recorded and issues were not framed, suffice it to say that the order passed by the learned P.C.B.L. Is well-reasoned whereby each and every aspect of the case has been discussed. The inherent defects in the claim of the petitioner were sufficient to reject the claim of the petitioner and there was no necessity to frame the issues when the petitioner had failed to make out a prima facie case for the issuance of NOC in his favour.
7. No ground for interference is made out and there is no reason for remanding the case back to P.C.B.L. For lingering on the matter in order to provide another opportunity to the petitioner to retain the possession for further period. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. This petition having no merit is dismissed.