' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.-Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a Contractor of collection of tax on transfer of property under respondent No,l/TMA and challenged through suit, the order dated 16-6-2008 passed by DCO/respondent No,2 whereby he placed restriction on the registration of sale deeds/mutations of unapproved private housing colonies in District Okara.
Along with the suit an application for interim relief seeking suspension of the operation of" said order was also filed. Suit and application was contested by the respondents. Learned trial court vide order dated 16-9-2008 dismissed the application. Petitioner's appeal also failed on 22-10- 2008. Both these orders are being assailed through the instant civil revision.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to PLD 2007 Lah. 689 and PLD 2008 Lah. 337 read with Rule 135 of the Registration Rules, 1929 that registration authorities have no jurisdiction whatsoever to go beyond the identity of the executant and confirmation by such executant with regard to contents of document. Registration authority cannot examine the correctness, falsity, fraudulent element or for that matter any other eventuality with regard to the document except the true identity of the executant. It is also added that on account of bar imposed by the DCO petitioner is suffering irreparable loss. On the other hand, if petitioner is allowed to collect tax on the sale-deeds/mutations, same can be calculated with exact amount, therefore, irreparable loss if any is likely to occur to petitioner and not to respondents.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No, 1 contends that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, therefore, a civil suit is not maintainable. He has also submitted that an appeal is provided under the Local Government Ordinance against the order passed by the DCO.
4. Learned A.A.-G. With reference to Rule 8(7) of the Punjab Private Site Development Schemes (Regulation) Rules, 2005 contends that in any private scheme, a developer is not authorized to offer sale of. Plots/houses unless his scheme is duly sanctioned in accordance with , law. It is thus contended that restriction imposed through the impugned letter dated 16-6-2008 is in accordance with law.
5. I have considered arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
6. Judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported as PLD 1008 Lah. 337 is on somewhat different subject, inasmuch as in the said case an order was passed refusing issuance of some revenue record while case reported as PLD 2007 Lah. 689 pertains to an individual matter.
The instant case relates to a general direction issued by the DCO relating to all such private developers which have not yet obtained sanction from the competent authority, therefore, the ruling cited by the learned counsel is not fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case.
The authority is competent to give effect to the provisions of rules by restraining private developers to offer plots for sale which scheme has not yet been duly approved.
7. For what has been stated above, I find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.