' S. A. NUSRAT, J.-The impugned orders dated 31st March 1976 and 31st July 1975 were passed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the background of the following facts.
2. The petitioner, on the promulgation of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulation") disclosed the details of her holding of agricultural land, including alienations made by her within the specified period. She owned an agricultural tractor also, which was in good working order as on 20th December 1971. She claimed benefit of retention of additional area as provided in paragraph 8 (1) (i) of the Regulation. She filed the requisite certificate in the prescribed form as provided in sub-paragraph (2) (i) of paragraph 8 of the Regulation. The certificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Sanghar read as under:- "On the strength of the proof produced before. Me and on verification of the above averments of the applicant on L. R. VII it is certified that the applicant owned an agricultural tractor, which was in good working order on 20th December 1971.
(Sd.)
Assistant.Commissioner, Sanghar (Sind)
12-5-1972."
' The declaration of the petitioner was processed by the Land Commissioner, Sind, under paragraph 7 of the Regulation and later the respondent No, 3 confirmed the extent of permissible holding in favour of the petitioner including the area which she was entiteld to retain on account of tractor concession. This order was passed on 14th April 1975. Later, on the instruction of the Federal Land Commission, the case of the petitioner was re-opened by the Land Commissioner, Sind, on the ground that the grant of additional area of 2000 PIUs. To the petitioner on account of the tractor concession was doubtful as the petitioner had purchased the tractor from her cousin Mohammed Hassan, who had in turn purchased it on 12th February 1971. The respondent No, 2, in the circumstances, took up the case of the petitioner in the purported exercise of suo mot/ power under the Sind Land Reforms Rules, 1972, and by his order dated 31st July 1975, withdrew the concession for the grant of additional land for owning agricultural tractor. The petitioner challenged the said order in appeal, which was dismissed by the respondent No. 1 as per order dated 31st March 1976.
' It appears from the impugned orders that the concession for the grant of additional land under paragraph 8 (2) (i) was withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner had merely produced a receipt dated 11th September 1971, showing the purchase of the tractor and the tractor was not registered in her name. It indicates that the petitioner's appeal was decided ex parte because she was not represented on the date of hearing. In addition to the receipt dated 11th September 1971, for the purchase of the tractor, the petitioner had also relied upon certain receipts issued in her name for the purchase of fuel for the tractor during the months of October and November, 1971 and thereafter in the years 1972 to 1975. The order of the first respondent shows that his predecessor had sent the cash memos for the purchase of fuel for the tractor for verification and report to the Assistant Commissioner in order to ascertain the genuineness of the same. Such report was duly submitted by the Assistant Commissioner and it was reported that the bills were genuine. The learned first respondent did not place any reliance on the report and dismissed the appeal on the short ground that the petitioner had failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that she had actually purch aced the tractor from Mohammad Hassan before the crucial date.
3. Mr. Imamally Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the transfer of the tractor, which was movable property, could be legally affected by simple delivery of possession. According to him no registration under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance was necessary so long as the tractor was not required for plying on road in the town. He placed reliance on sections 19 and 20 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1930 to show that the title in respect of specific movable property passed to the buyer according to the intention of the parties when such title was intended to be transferred and the goods were otherwise in deliverable State. He further relied on section 23 of the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, which reads as under :- "23. Motor vehicles not to be driven without registration.-(1) No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place for the purpose of carrying passengers or goods unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner.
Explanation.-A motor vehicle shall not be deemed to be registered in accordance with this Chapter if the certificate of registration has been suspended or cancelled.
(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle while being driven within the limits of jurisdiction of a registering authority to or from the appropriate place of registration for the purpose of being registered under section 24, 26, 40 or 4L or to a motor vehicle exempted from the provisions of this Chapter while in the possession of a dealer in moter vehicles."
' The provisions contained in the above section clearly show that permision for registration is required only where a vehicle is required to be driven in any public place for the purpose of carrying passengers or goods and not otherwise. Mr. Imamally Kazi also referred us to a Judgment of this Court in the case of Shafi Muhammad v. Federal Land Commission (1) wherein it was held that mere fact of non-registration of a tractor in the name of the owner was not a conclusive factor in the determination of the question of entitlement by virtue of paragraph 8 (2)(i) of the Regulation and other evidence could be looked into for the purpose of determining the point in issue. This judgment is on all fours and clinches the issue. Mr. Imamally Kazi further contended that on factual plane the allegation that Mohammed Hassan. From whom the tractor was purchased by the petitioner, was her cousin, was incorrect. In this connection the learned counsel referred to paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the stay application clearly stating that Muhammad Hassan was not the cousin of the petitioner and was not related to her. Although a counter- affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, this assertion was not denied.
' For the reasons mentioned above the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.
4. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petition is allowed and it is declared that the impugned orders dated 31st March, 1976 and 31st July 1975, were passed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 without lawful authority and the same are of no consequence. The respondents will bear the costs of the petition. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1979C LC91 {{FOOT NOTE}}