1. SALEEM AKHTAR, J.-This judgment will dispose of Constitutional Petitions No. D-64 and 326/1976.
2. Both the petitions have been filed against the same order passed by the respondent No. 1. In Petition No. D-64/1978 the transferees in Petition No. 326/1976 the transfers have challenged the same order passed by respondent No:
1. In Petition No. D-64/1978 by an agreement dated 16th October, 1969 the petitioners purchased from Habib Sugar Mills Limited, Respondent No. 3, agricultural land measuring 493 acres 34 ghuntas situated in D1strict Nawabshah for a sum of Rs.4,33,845.37. The possession was delivered to the petitioners on 2-8-1970 and they are in undisputed and und1sturbed possession, thereof. They are also paying regularly land revenue for the said land. On the promulgation of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 the respondent No. 3 filed a declaration in terms thereof and the Land Commissioner by an order announced on 23rd, June, 1972 confirmed the transfer of land in favour of the petitioners. It is, however, alleged that by an order dated 22-6-1972, the transfer was rejected on the ground that the pr6per permission of Collector required for a valid transfer had not been obtained. The respondent No. 3 filed an appeal against the said order which was allowed on 26th September, 1972. The Chief Land Commissioner held that the transaction was genuine, consider--ation was adequate and that the prior permission of the Collector was not necessary. The transaction was, therefore, confirmed.
3. Thereafter a suo motu notice of revision dated 16-8-1975 was issued by respondent No. I followed by another notice dated 24-8-1975 and the case was heard on 1st December, 1975. However, the impugned order was passed on 30th March, 1976, It is this order which has been challenged in both the petitions.
4. Mr. Khalid Anwar the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the impugned order which has not in any manner d1sturbed the finding that the transaction was genuine and the consideration was adequate. The only ground which found favour with the respondent No. I was that as the Transfer of Property Act was applicable in the Province of Sin d and the sale deed in favour of the petitioners had not been reg1stered the sale was of no legal effect and was void. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Lund Khan and another v. Member, Federal Land Commis--sioner and 3 others (PLD 1981 Kar. 114) wherein in similar circumstances it was held that as the conditions laid down under section 53-A of T. P. Act were fulfilled and .Valuable rights were created in favour of the petitioners by the agreement of sale in part performance whereof possession was delivered to the petitioners the right thus created under section 53-A of T. P. Act was accordingly treated as an interest in property and the transaction could be confirmed as bona fide under paragraph 7 (1) (b) of the Regulation. Referring to paragraph 7 (1) (v) of the Regulation the following observation was made.
5. "There is yet another reason that not only completed sale transactions duly confirmed by reg1stered deeds can be confirmed under para. 7 (1) (b) of the Regulation but also ether transactions, which create right or interest in the land although such transaction may not be complete sales through reg1stered deeds. This sub-paragraph lays down that unless the Commission is satisfied that it was a bona fide transaction, the transfer of any land or creation of any right or interest by the affected person during the prescribed period shall be deemed to be void and the land so transferred or the land on which the right, interest, or encumbrance was so created, shall be and shall be deemed always to have been, owned or possessed, as the case may be, by the person by whom it was owned or possessed immediately before that date. According to this provision, therefore, if in respect of any land, any right, interest or encumbrance has been created by a declarant in favour of a third party and the said transaction is held to be a bona fide transaction by the Land Commission Authorities, the said land may not be considered to be a part of the holding of the declarant for the purposes of land reforms Law. It is, therefore, clear that even if no transfer in the form of a reg1stered sale deed has taken place but the transaction only reflects the creation of any right of interest in land, it is possible for the Land Commission Authorities to declare such transaction as bona fide and in such case, the person, who has created such right or interest in favour of another person may not be treated as the owner of such land for the purpose of determining his holding under the land Reforms Regulation, 1972."