JUDGMENT '
1. AJMAL MIAN, C. J.--This petition is directed against the order dated 15-3--1981, passed by the respondent No. 1 declaring the alleged sale transaction in favour of the petitioner as invalid. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner had allegedly entered into a sale agreement with the vendor respondent No.5 Mir A.I Murad Khan for the purchase of the suit land allegedly on 27th August, 1971 for a sum of Rs.35,700. Out of which he had allegedly paid a sum of Rs.20,000 as part performance on the date of the execution of the sale agreement and received possession of the suit land from the vendor in part performance in his part. It appears that Land Commissioner Sind, by order dated 24-7-1972 upon the filing of the declaration under paragraph 7 of the MLR-115 (hereinafter referred to as the MLR) declined to accept the above sale transaction. The vendor being aggrieved by the above order filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned Additional Chief Land Commissioner Sind, Hyderabad, by his order dated 8-9-1973. It seems that the above order of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner was set aside-by respondent No. 1 by order dated 17-12-1976 while exercising suo motu revision power. Against the above order the petitioner filed C.P. No.D-81/1977 which was allowed by Division Bench of this Court by a Judgment dated 30-4-1980 and the case was remanded to respondent No. 1 for adjudication upon after taking into consideration Explanation III to paragraph 7 of the MLR.
3. Upon the above remand order, respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order holding that the above alleged sale transaction was not proved. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition.
4. (1)That since the execution of the sale agreement was not doubted non---registration of the sale- deed or non entry in the Revenue record on a date prior to the target that, namely, 20-12-1971 is of no consequence.
5. (2)That respondent No. 1 has failed to consider the requirements mentioned in Explanation III of paragraph 7 of the MLR.
6. (3)The petitioner had acquired interest/right in terms of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act which should have been accepted by respondent No. 1.
7. (1)The agreement was not executed in time.
8. (2)No change was brought out in the record to show the change of ownership before the 20-12-1971 and well after the date, and (3)For the possession the alienee relies almost exclusively on the land revenue receipts paid in 1973 and afterwards.
9. We are inclined to agree .With the learned counsel for the petitioner that if in part performance of a sale agreement the purchaser received the possession of the land in return of payment of certain consideration, he will be entitled to invoke Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and the mere fact that there is no sale-deed registered would not be fatal for the purpose of determining the bona fide of the transaction in terms of Explanation III to paragraph 7 of the MLR. The reliance has been placed by Mr. Farooqui in support of his submission on the two cases, namely the case of Limo Khan and another v. Member, Federal Land Commission and 3 others reported in PLD 1981 Kar. 114 and the case of Sachunand and another vs. Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi and 2 others reported in PLD 1981 Kar. 393. In the former it has been held that non-registration of a sale-deed is not fatal, whereas in the latter case it has been laid down that it is a de facto position which is relevant and not de jure. There cannot be any cavil with the above proposition of the law. The basic question as observed hereinabove is whether factually there was a sale transaction between the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 on a date prior to 20-12-1971. Respondent No.1 has recorded the finding in the negative as stated hereinabove for more than one reason. Admittedly there was no document on record before the respondent No. 1 or before us to indicate that the petitioner was recognized as having possession of the suit land by any Government functionary on a date prior to the target date. Mr. Rehanul Hasan Farooqui has placed reliance particularly on a revenue receipt dated 29-7-1972 which pertains to the year 1971- 1972 and has vehemently contended that the petitioner has no reason to pay the revenue for the above year if factually he would not have been in possession of the suit land. The factum that the petitioner had paid the revenue for the above year in July, 1972 would not prove either the genuineness of the sale agreement of 27-8-1971 or the factum that the petitioner was in possession of the suit land prior to 20-12-1971. In our view the respondent No. 1 was competent only the basis of the record available to take the view which found favour with him.
10. We are of the view the case is not fit for interference by this Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. The petition is therefore, dismissed with no 'order as to costs.
11. M.Y.H./Z-94/K Petition dismissed