1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-One, Muhammad Hayat, predecessor-in-- interest of respondents 7-10, secured allotment of the disputed land measuring 200 kanals situated in Chak No. 332-H. R., Tehsil Fort Abbas, on Bara conditions. The land was, however, resumed by the Government for non- payment of the installments of the price by Muhammad Hayat. According to the petitioners' case who are the children of one, Sultan Muhammad Hayat then entered into an agreement with their father, whereby land was transferred to Sultan for a consideration of Rs, 562 out of which Rs. 100 were paid and the balance was to be paid on the restora--tion of the land to Muhammad Hayat.
2. The land was ultimately restored to Hayat who applied on the 19th of April 1945, for its alienation in favour of Sultan under section 19 of the Coloniza--tion of Government Lands Act. This permission was granted on the 25th of November 1945. Sultan deposited the entire sale --price thereafter in the Government treasury.
3. Hayat thereafter went back on his agreement with Sultan and transferred the same land to one, Attaullah, for a considera--tion of Rs. 1,000 by a registered deed executed on the 12th of February 1947, after obtaining the sanction of the Collector in this behalf under section 19 aforesaid. The latter sold it to respondent Sadiq Muhammad and others (respondents 1-5) by means of a registered sale-deed dated the 12th of March 1958.
4. Sultan moved the Colonization Authorities for cancellation of the transfer made in favour of Ataullah and subsequently in favour of respondents 1-5, on the basis of the earlier alienation in his own favour and succeeded ultimately in getting an order from the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, as a delegate of the Board of Revenue. This order dated the 28th of October 1958, directed that the mutation of the land be effected in the name of Sultan. This order was contested by respondents 1-5 in a civil suit, who claimed ownership of the land and prayed for a permanent injunction against interference with their possession by Sultan. The suit was decreed by the trial Court whose decision has been upheld in appeal by the District Judge and in second appeal by the High Court. It is clear from the circumstances mentioned above that when Muhammad Hayat had allegedly entered into an oral agreement with Sultan, the land had already been resumed from him and he had no title left to confer it on Sultan, nor had he obtained the sanction of the relevant authorities for the transfer in favour of Sultan without which no valid title could have passed to the transferee. It may also be observed that no effort was made during the suit to prove this oral agree--ment. The statement of Hayat dated the 19th of August 1945, allegedly made by him before the Collector which was relied upon by the petitioners, was not sought to be proved in any manner.
5. The mere grant of sanction by the Collector in favour of Sultan on the 25th of November 1945, would not prove that the land was, in fact, transferred to Sultan thereafter. It was not the petitioners' case that any transaction of sale took place between their father and Hayat on the strength of the sanction accorded on the 25th of November 1945. The mere deposit of a sum of Rs. 562 by Sultan on the 31st of January 1946, did not create any title in his favour. On the contrary, when Muhammad Hayat transferred the land in favour of Ataullah by a registered deed after obtaining the sanction of the Colonization Authorities, his right to do so was clear and the earlier transfer allegedly made in favour of Sultan on the basis of an oral agreement made prior to the sanction from the relevant authorities in respect of that transfer could not have been an impediment in the transfer of a valid title in favour of Ataullah. No exception can be taken to the view adopted by the Courts below in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents.
6. The petition is dismissed.