GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.-This order shall also dispose, of W. Ps. Nos. 1680, 1681, of 1977, 531, 532, 533 of 1979, 6032, 6033, 6034, 6035, 6036, 6037, 6038, 6039, 6048, 6049, 6050, 6051, E052, 6053 of 1978, as all of them concern the same subject and the same questions of fact and law.
2. The three petitions W. P. 1679, 1680 and 1681, were brought by vendors/declarants under Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, while the others are by the vendees. The cases of the declarant/vendors is that the oral sales effected through mutations by them were valid and legal and the respondent Member, Federal Land Commission, could clot have declared the same void. The vendees also raise the same point and pray that the transactions be declared as valid.
3. It is to be noted that the vendees are not the persons aggrieved as the proceedings under the Land Reforms Regulation are only for the purpose of ascertaining the holdings of the declarants so as to resume the excess land, if any. There is no dispute between the declarant/vendors and the vendees, as none of them disputes the actual fact of the transactions. Consequently so far as they are concerned, the transactions may be effective. Reference be made to Mst. Raj Bibi and 4 others v. Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (1).In this view of the matter, the petitions filed by the vendees may be dismissed for the reason that they are not persons aggrieved.
4. As for the declarant/vendors the sales made by them are joint, The particulars of the various transactions are as under:- URDU Briefly, the facts leading to these proceedings are that the declarant/vendors filed declarations under Land Reforms Regulation No. 115. They came up before the Deputy Land Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan, who after holding a preliminary inquiry referred it for decision to the Land Commis- -sioner, Bahawalpur. The declarations involved the above oral transactions of sale made at various dates between Ist March, 1966, to 20th December, 1971. The Land Commissioner validated all these transactions vide his order dated 12th June, 1972.
5. After a lapse of about 4 years, the declarant/vendors received notices to appear before the respondent and show-cause as to why the areas mentioned therein be not resumed. The cases were argued by the counsel of the declarants and were ultimately decided vide the impugned orders holding all the six transactions to be void.
6. The reason given was that neither were the vendees shown to be in possession of the money nor was its actual payment proved. The case of the declarants was that firstly the notices issued were not valid inasmuch as they did not give reasons for which the respondent wanted to reopen the matter and secondly it was not lawful to issue such notices after lapse of about 4 years.
7. As for the objection to the validity of the notices it is to be see that no time limit is provided in para. 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation 11 under which the respondent was acting. Secondly the learned counsel for the respondent had specifically stated that the declarants were not only informed of the defects as contained in the report of the Inspection Team but they had inspected the record and were given sufficient time to defend.
8. We have gone through the report of the Inspection Team, the relevant portions of which had been reproduced in the order of the respondent also. The learned counsel for the respondent were also shown the record wherein the files containing the report had been inspected. In the circum-- stances it cannot be said that the petitioners did not have sufficient notice of the objections to meet
9. It is a fact that large sums of money are shown to have been paid--for these transactions on various dates. Mst. Aalia `Bibi, vendee in mutation No. 67 is daughter bf Sikandar Hayat (petitioner in W. P. No. 1680-17)and neice of the other two vendor/declarants. She paid a sum of Rs. 123,600. The vendee in mutation No. 94 is a minor brother of the declarants who is stated to have paid a sum of Rs. 1,66,000. Another large amount of Rs. 2,80,000 involved is in mutation No. 276 made in favour of the mother of the vendors. The respondent, therefore, did not err in law or fact to hold these mutations void in the absence of proof of either possession of money or its actual payment.
10. Even otherwise, the land in question is situate in the former State of Bahawalpur where sections 54 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act had been made applicable. Consequently, no oral sale was permissible. This aspect of the case has not been considered by the respondentsHowever, as it is a pure question of law and as the sales are admittedly oral it could be taken note of. Reliance is placed on Jangi v. Jhanda (PLD 1961 BJ34), Sohna v. Allah Dad (PLD1962BJ17), Zahir Ahmad v. Seth Sugni Chand (PLD 1965 Kar. 195) and Ratish Chandra Mridha v. Hara Krishna Goldar (PLD 1964 Dacca 506). Reference be also made to Haji Noor Muhammad v. Ghulam Masih Gill (PLD 1965 B J 1
11. Normally, we would have been persuaded to agree that the sale of share of Sikandar Hayat Khan in favour of his daughter Mst. Aalia Bibi, to the extent of 57 acres, 3 kanals in Mutation No. 67 would have been declared valid in view of the specific provisions in such cases in para. 7 of the Land Reforms Regulation. Similarly, we would have been persuaded to set aside the order of the respondent in respect of Mutation No. 276 which had been attested in the name of Mst. Zohra Khatoon the mother of the vendor/declarants to the extent of 93 acres, 7 kanals 14 marlas, as transaction in her favour was also immune. However, as the sales do not exist in the eye of law in view of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, the same cannot be validated. --For the reasons given above, there is no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed in limine.