1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.--- In these two appeals the question involved and for examination of which leave to appeal was separately granted in each case is; whether, a P.T.O. Holder in which no P.T.D. Was issued prior to June, 1968 could claim statutory validation of the transfer under section 10(1)(b) of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act XIII of 1975. In other words whether, the transfer of evacuee trust property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 involved in this case could be treated as valid under section 10 notwithstanding the fact that they were otherwise void on account of the character of the property being evacuee trust property. The case of Tahir All (CA-48-K of 1988) was decided by the Sindh High Court in 1987 and reported in Tahir All v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1987 Karachi 290. The ratio in the said case was that when a P.T.O. Is issued after payment of entire price it would have to be equated with a P.T.D. For all intents and purposes. It was also observed that although a transfer under a P.T.O. Is only provisional but in reality there was no difference between permanent and provisional transfer if full payment had been made by the transferee before the issuance of P.T.O.
2. Such like cases, it was held, were covered by section 10 of the Act.
3. ' The case of Mst. Mariam Bai came up for hearing before the Sindh High Court, after the judgment in Tahir Ali's case referred to above. The same has also been impugned in Civil Appeal No,48-K of 1988. On account of the conflict in the judgment of the same High Court in the case of Tahir Ali and that of Mst. Hafeez Begum v. Assistant Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property PLD 1983 Karachi 374, a Full Bench was constituted in Mariam's case. By its judgment dated 25-2-1990, it overruled the view taken in Tahir Ali's case and held that section 10 would not be attracted to cases in which only P.T.O. (and not a PTD) was issued prior to June, 1968 even after full payment of the price. The said decision of the Sindh High Court has been impugned in Civil Appeal No,37-K of 1991.
4. ' Learned counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal No,48-K of 1988 relied upon the reasoning in the Full Bench judgment of the Sindh High Court in the connected appeal No,37-K of 1991 and prayed for the acceptance of CA 48-K None has appeared in this (Appeal No,48-K of 1988) from the respondents' side while the appellants in Civil Appeal No,37-K of 1991 are represented by Mr. Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record.
5. ' Mr. Faizanul Haq stated that his counsel despite having been informed about the appeal has not turned up to address the arguments. When called upon to argue the appeal himself failed to do so.
6. ' We with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants, who remained very fair to the absent sides, have examined the legal question involved in these appeals, on which leave to appeal was granted and which has already been mentioned above with reference to the leave grant orders as well as the decided cases. It is a simple case of statutory validation of void transfer and to say the least the invalid transfer without such validation. The High Court assumed lack of validity in Tahir Ali's case. Undoubtedly the transfers in these cases were invalid and ineffective though at some places they have also been treated as void. With due respect, in Tahir Ali's case basic principle was not noticed; namely, that when an invalidity is converted into validity through a statutory intervention the provisions relating thereto have to be construed strictly. Section 10(1)(b) laid down amongst others three very important conditions. One, that the property situated in an urban area must have been utilized bona fide under the Act, for purpose of transfer thereunder.
7. Secondly, the utilization must be against the satisfaction of verified claims, and thirdly, that the permanent transfer deed must have been issued prior to June, 1968. In these cases admittedly the permanent transfer deeds (as distinguished from provisional transfer orders) were not issued prior to June, 1968. Therefore, as already observed if the provision is construed strictly, it would not be attracted. It is not necessary to go into the details of the various points of difference between Permanent Transfer Deeds and Provisional Transfer Orders. There are many features in the proceedings as a result of which either of them could be issued which make them fairly independent instruments arising out of separate and independent actions. No doubt there are cases in which P.T.O. Holders were clothed with some authority to deal with the property on the basis of issuance of P.T.O. Like the case of Rahim Bakhsh v. Ch. Ahmad Bakhsh PLD 1964 SC 189 under rent law; but the fact remains that there are basic differences between P.T.O. And P.T.D. And the stages when either of them is issued. The High Court in the Full Bench judgment in the case of Mst. Mariam Bai (CA-37-K of 1991) has highlighted some features of P.T.O. And P.T.D. And the conditions on the satisfaction of which they are issued. We have no reason to differ with the High Court on this issue. In Mst. Mariam Bai's case it was also held that the two other conditions were not satisfied.
8. ' Be that as it may on the point of law for the examination of which leave to appeal was granted we uphold the decision of the Sindh High Court in the case of Mst. Mariam Bai with the result that the appeal therein; namely, CA-37-K of 1991 is dismissed. And for the same reasons the other appeal CA-48-K of 1988 is allowed. The judgment of the High Court in the latter case is, accordingly, set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. ' Before closing this judgment it needs to be remarked that on account of the absence of the contesting party in one appeal and the appellants' side in the other the learned counsel for the Evacuee Trust Board in fairness showed willingness that if under the law as amended uptodate it has become possible for the Board now to sell the property involved in these cases to the parties concerned in accordance with the latest law independent of their reliance on the earlier transfers as having been validated under section 10, this aspect may be examined by the authorities concerned suo motu after serving a notice to the persons concerned.