1. This civil revision arises out of a suit for declaration to the effect that the petitioners were owners of 26 acres 6 kanals 8 marlas of land situated in Chak No.50/KB tehsil Burewala district Vehari with consequential relief for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from resuming the land or granting the same on lease to anybody else.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the disputed land was auctioned by the respondent Government in March, 1956. The petitioners offered the highest bid and on the fall of hammer paid 1/3rd of the price amounting to Rs.3,172.12. The possession of the land was immediately delivered to the petitioners who are still in possession of the same. They paid the balance amount through instalments. Thus, they paid the total auction price (with interest) amounting to Rs.13,621.10 in May, 1959. The Collector called fresh tenders of the disputed land. Then the petitioners made queries and came to know that the Collector had passed an order for resumption of the land on 6-41959.
2. Thereupon, the petitioners filed the suit on 30-7-1959. The suit was resisted by the respondent. The trial Court decreed the suit vide the judgment and decree dated 28-11-1960. The respondent filed an appeal which was allowed and the case was remanded to the trial Court by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, vide his judgment and decree dated 13-4-1963. The remand order was challenged by the petitioners through Regular Second Appeal No.267 of 1963 in this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 27-4-1967. The said order was challenged through L.PA.
3. No.240 of 1967, which was also dismissed. After remand the trial Court again decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 18-5-1981. The respondent-Government filed an appeal, which was allowed by the learned District Judge, Vehari, vide his judgment and decree dated 2-12-1984.
4. Hence, this civil revision.
5. 3: Mr. Taj Muhammad Khan Langah, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the auction was not subject to approval by the Government and that condition No.5 embodied in the photostat copy of statement of conditions of the auction was not relevant in the petitioner's case. He submitted that the said document was never signed by the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioners had paid the entire auction price and thus, became full owners of the disputed land.
6. He placed reliance on Ibrahim v. Mst. Rajji and others PLD 1956 (W.P.) LA. 609, Ilam Din v.
7. Muhammad Din PLD 1964 SC 842, Allah Ditta and another v. Province of the Punjab through the Collector, Sargodha and another PLD 1978 Lah. 289, Karim Dad v. Arif Ali and another PLD 1978 Lah.
8. 679 and Zafar Ullah Khan etc. v. Abdur Rehman's etc. 1985 MLD 1574. Lastly, he urged that no notice was issued to the petitioners before ordering resumption of the land. Thus, they were condemned unheard. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate=General urged that the auction was subject to approval by the Government and that the land was rightly resumed because approval was not granted by the Government. He pointed out that the balance amount was paid by the petitioners in a clandestine manner. At any rate, the said payment did not confer a4y title on the petitioners. After conclusion of arguments in the case, the petitioners filed C.M.1/1989 for permission to place the Notification dated 3-9--1979 on the record and for hearing their learned counsel, Mr. Atta Ullah Khan Tareen, Advocate, in reply to the arguments raised by the learned Additional Advocate-General. The permission was granted vide order dated 30-10-1989 and the learned counsel for the petitioners was heard at length.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the present case, auction of the land was held on.16-3-1956. The auction started at 9- 00 a.m. In the morning and after 15/20 minutes, a telegram was received from the Government to stop the auction. This was done due to some complaint against Sardar Atta Muhammad, the then Colonization Officer. The agreements Exs.D-1 and D-2 appear to have been executed after the receipt of the telegram from the Government. Sardar Atta Muhammad appeared as P.W.2 in the case and admitted that he had received the telegram and thereafter he stopped auction of other lands. 1t may be mentioned that on that very day, auction of lots Nos.1 and 2 situated in Chak No.525/EB had also taken place. The proceedings of the auction could not be completed within 15 minutes. The auction proceedings appear to have been finalized after the receipt of the telegram.
9. The Government had also ordered an inquiry into the auction of the lots. In the written arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it has been mentioned that sanction from the Government was delayed on account of inquiry against P.W.2, who' had conducted the auction.
10. However, nothing is known about its ultimate outcome. After payment of 1 /3rd price of the auction, Muhammad Shamir made an application on 30-12-1958 for depositing the last instalment of the balance amount. On this application, the Accountant made the following note:- "As proposed. But their signature must be obtained in token of receipt and communication of these orders."
11. Underneath the orders appear the signature of Mushtaq Ahmad, one of the petitioners as well as the thumb-impression of Hashmat Ali and signatures of Muhammad Shamir and Hafiz Gul Muhammad Khan. Thus, the payment of the balance amount was made with a clear understanding that the auction purchasers would have no right or title over the land after the auction was not approved by the Government. The trial Court has grossly erred in holding that with the permission to deposit the whole purchase money, the condition of approval by the A Government stood automatically waived. As mentioned above, the balance amount was allowed to be deposited with a clear understanding that' the same was subject to the approval of auction by the Government. There was no time limit for granting or refusing approval to the auction. A photo copy of the statement of conditions exhibited as D.1 in the case of Taj Mahmood Khan etc. v.
12. Province of Punjab has been placed on the trial Court's record in the present case. The respondent cannot take advantage of this document because he ought to have produced the original document in the Court. Moreover, the petitioners are not signatories to the same. All the columns at page 6 were left blank. However, there are other documents (Exs.D-1 and D-2) which can be legitimately treated to be the agreements of sale of the disputed land between the parties. In these agreements, it was mentioned that the petitioners were the highest bidders for lots Nos.2 and 1 situated in Chak No.50/KB and that they had paid a sum of Rs.1,569 for lot No.2 and Rs.1,593 for lot No.1 and undertaken to pay the remaining auction money subject to acceptance of their bids by the Government. In these agreements reference has been made to the notice of the sale issued by that Colonization Officer, Pakpattan dated 28-1-1956 published at pages 142 to 148 of Part III of the West Pakistan Government Gazette dated 24-2-1956. It includes the statement of conditions as well. Relevant part of condition No.5 (at page 143 of the Gazette) reads as under:-- "The sale will be subject to final acceptance and confirmation by the Provincial Government and no bidder, even though his bid has been accepted as the highest by the auctioner and the local officer, shall be deemed to be the purchaser, or shall be deemed to have any claim with regard to his deposit, if the sale is not confirmed by the Provincial Governments other than for the return of such (sum) actually deposited by him."
13. Condition No.10 is also relevant and reproduced below for ready reference "When the successful purchaser has paid the sum or sums mentioned in condition 6 above he will thereupon be placed in possession of the land sold, by an officer appointed in that behalf by the Collector, and shall furnish to such officer a written acknowledgment of receipt of possession.
14. Provided that possession will be granted in anticipation of, and without prejudice to the decision of Government and will in no case entitle the bidder to receive compensation or to remain in possession, in the event of the refusal of Government finally, to accept the highest bid. Provided also that, until the full amount of the purchase money, with any interest or penal interest due thereon, has been paid, and other conditions set forth in this statement have been fulfilled, the purchaser shall be deemed to' be a tenant of such land under section 15 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, V of 1912."
15. Both these agreements (Exs.D.1 and D.2) were signed by Mushtaq Ahmad, petitioner No.1, and Daulat Khan, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos.2 to 4. Even in the Standing Order No.67 para.33 issued by the Board of Revenue, regarding auction of State-land, it has been mentioned that the sale shall be completed by the higher-bidder within six months on the acceptance of the offer by the Government. Thus, the Government was competent to accept or reject the bids at its discretion. It appears that the very auction was conducted and finalized in a dubious manner which led to some inquiry against the official conducting the same. Perhaps the matter relating to approval of auction was delayed due to the said inquiry. The Government as being the owner of the disputed land was fully competent to refuse or approve the auction held on 16-3--1956. Hence, there was nothing wrong with the resumption order passed by the Collector.
16. 5: There is no force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that mere payment of full price was sufficient to confer title on the petitioner. In case of sale of State land, title passes to the purchasers on payment of full price and fulfilment of other conditions. The words "fulfilment of other conditions" occurring in section 5 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, clearly signify that full payment of price alone is not sufficient to confer title on an individual as against the State. If the dispute is between two private persons, then the person, who has made the full payment, may be treated to be an owner as against the private person, who was challenging his title. I am afraid none of the precedents cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is helpful to him because those cases do not pertain to auction of land requiring formal approval of auction by the Government. The case of Ibrahim v. Mst. Rajji and others PLD 1956 (W.P).
17. Lah. 609 pertains to a tenant of an Ihata for which full price had been deposited by Mst. Rajji, successor-in-interest of Yousuf Ali, the allottee. The formal sale-deed was executed in her favour on 26-9-1944 after depositing the full price. Mst. Rajji made a gift of the land which was challenged as being invalid by a second degree collateral of the original allottee. In this background, it was held that the proprietary title had passed to Mst. Rajji on payment of full price and that the gift made by her was valid. Obviously, the basic transaction of allotment of Ihata in question was valid and no other step to complete the same was required. In this context, full payment of price was considered to be sufficient for conferment of proprietary title on Mst. Rajji. However, in the present case, the basic transaction of auction of the land required formal approval of the Government.
18. Without the said approval, no valid contract of sale had come into being. Therefore, full payment alone was not sufficient to C convey title of the land to the petitioners. The case of Ilam Din v.
19. Muhammad Din PLD 1964 SC 842 involved the question as to whether the land would devolve under section 30(a) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act or not. The other question whether the acquisition of proprietary rights takes effect from the date on which full payment of price was paid or on a later date when the sale--deed was executed and registered was also considered. The Court held that the succession in the case was not covered under section 30(a) of the Act and that in respect of obligations to third parties, the title in the property matured in favour of the predecessor when transfer having been authorised, full dues had been paid. In Zafar Ullah Khan etc. v. Abdul Rehman's etc. 1985 MLD 1574 the validity of the lease was not disputed. Therefore, it was held that the sale became complete and effective as soon as full payment of price was received by the vendor without any protest. This case has no bearing on the facts of the present case. Similarly, the case of Allah Ditta and another v. Province of the Punjab through the Collector, Sargodah and another PLD 1978 Lah. 289 and that of Karim Dad v. Arif Ali and another PLD 1978 Lah.
20. 679 are distinguishable on facts and need not be discussed in detail. The learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to some other judgments in which formal sanction of auction was not required. Those cases have no application to the facts of the present case and need not be discussed. 'It' may be mentioned that while executing the conveyance deed in respect. Of State land, the State reserves a number of rights in respect of mines, minerals, earth oil and quarries etc. The title may pass to a tenant on full payment of price- as against another private individual but does not pass as against the State till such time, all other conditions governing the grant, sale or auction as the case may be are fulfilled and formal conveyance deed is executed in favour of the allottee or the purchaser. In this connection, reference may be made to section 15 of the.
21. Colonization of Government Lands Act, which is reproduced as under:- "15.Purchaser to be tenant pending payment in full of purchase money.--A purchaser from (Government) of land who has been placed in possession of the land by order of the Collector shall be deemed to be a tenant of such land until the full amount of the purchase money with any interest due thereon has been paid and the other conditions set-forth in the statement of conditions of sale issued by the Collector have been fulfilled." order to become an owner as against the State, the formal execution of the conveyance decd is also essential because the Government has to reserve a number of rights pertaining to the land. If payment of full price alone is sufficient to transfer title to the purchasers, then he can, at once, obtain a stay order from a Court and restrain the Government from exercising its rights in respect of mines, minerals, earth oil, quarries, creation of new roads, water-courses etc. That is F why, the execution of conveyance deed is not mere formality but an important condition to the transfer of title to the purchaser subject to reservation of rights specified in the conveyance deed. Hence, title does not pass to the purchaser till such time the full sale price is paid and the other conditions governing the sale arc fulfilled. In the case of Sardar Habib Ullah Khan and others v. Province of West Pakistan PLD 1967 Lah. 52, a Division Bench of this Court dealt with the question as to whether payment of price alone was sufficient to confer proprietary rights on the depositor or not. In this case, the price for purchase of the Lambardari grant was paid by Habib Ullah Khan after permission of the Government was granted on 4-5-1953. The price was paid on 19-6-1953 but after about nine years, the permission was recalled and the price paid was ordered to be refunded to Habib Ullah Khan, petitioner. Repelling the argument that payment of full price was sufficient to make the depositor the full owner and referring to section 15 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, the Court was pleased to hold as under: "A plain reading of the section clearly shows that before becoming a full owner, a tenant of Government land has to fulfil two conditions, firstly, the full amount of purchase money with interest due has to be paid and secondly, other conditions set forth in the statement of conditions for sale have to be fulfilled. In the instant case, the purchase money had undoubtedly been paid in full, but one of the essential conditions of sale, namely, that the petitioner was not a hereditary Lambardar in the sense that the majority of the area in his patti, proprietary rights had not yet been acquired by the tenants on the relevant date, had not been fulfilled. That being the case, he would still remain a tenant of the land in terms of section 15."
22. It was held in the case of Rehmat Ali and 2 others v. The Revenue Board, West Pakistan,. Lahore and another' (1973 SCMR 342) that before confirmation of auction by the competent authority, no right was conferred on the auction---purchaser to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the Court. The relevant portion is reproduced below: x x x x Admittedly, the auction in favour of the petitioners was not confirmed. According to condition No.10 of the conditions of auction, it was within the discretion of the respondents to confirm or not to confirm the auction. The matter was considered at a higher level and the authorities concerned came to the conclusion that the auction in favour of the petitioners should not be confirmed.
23. 6.The petitioners' contention that they were condemned unheard also carries no weight in the circumstances of the present case. No opportunity of hearing was contemplated at the stage of acceptance or rejection of the bid on the part of the Government. The matter entirely rested in the discretion of the Government. After the refusal to accept the bid by the Government, the resumption had to follow as a matter of curse. Therefore, the resumption order cannot be held to be illegal on the ground that the petitioners were not heard by the Collector before passing the same.
7. As regards issues No.5 and 6 relating to claim for compensation, suffice it to say that these issues were not pressed by the petitioners before the Court of learned Additional District Judge.
24. Hence, the petitioners cannot be permitted to agitate the said issues in the present revision petition.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the petitioners are still in physical possession of the disputed land and are entitled to the conferment of proprietary rights in view of the notification for purchase of proprietary rights pertaining to temporary cultivation leases '(which appeared in the Gazette' of Punjab extraordinary) on 3rd September, 1979, 1, refrain from making any coment on the petitioners' entitlement under the above-referred notification. In case the petitioners feel that they can' take advantage of the notification, they may apply .For grant .Of proprietary rights to the competent authority who shall decide their application on merits in accordance with the law find no merit in this revision petition, which is dismissed with costs throughout.