1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-In this petition the orders dated 18th August, 1975 and 6th December, 1975 are assailed.
2. ' It is the petitioner's case that he agreed to purchase from the third respondent a plot of land measuring 170 square yards bearing No, A/9 in Al-Hilal Cooperative Society (K. D. A. Scheme No, 7), University Road, Karachi for a consideration of Rs, 7000. Out of the amount agreed a sum of Rs, 500 was paid on 15-5-1969 and Rs, 2500 on 21-8-1970 on the execution of the agreement of sale.
3. Thereafter, he was put in possession of the plot and after getting rid of the encroachments, be constructed a residential house at a cost of Rs, 25,000 and got installed Sui Gas and Electric connections and paid taxes. His name also stood recorded as owner of the said plot in the relevant records of the i)apartment. However, on the promulgation of the Abandoned Properties (Taking Over and Management) Act 1975. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the disputed plot was notified as 'abandoned property' as it belonged to the 3rd respondent who was admittedly a 'specified person' as defined by the Act. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application before the Administrator, Abandoned Properties, Cabinet Division, Karachi, under sections 13 and 14 of the Act seeking confirmation of the sale of the plot on payment of the balance of the purchase price, Le., R s. 4000 and in the alternate, for a declaration that the disputed plot was not abandoned property on the premise that the sale had taken place long before the crucial date viz., on or after the 15th day of December, 1971. The application was dismissed by order dated 18-8-1975. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Trustees Abandoned Properties, Cabinet Division, Government of Pakistan, but the appeal was also dismissed by order dated 6-12- 1975. Since the third respondent could not be served, his name was struck off by order dated 7-9- 1976.
4. ' The Administrator while dismissing the application held that no satisfactory proof was led to establish that there was transfer of title in favor of the petitioner. As to the amount spent in building the house, the Administrator did not rely on the certificate of the local construction Company and held that neither permission was taken for building the house from any competent authority nor evidence was adduced to show that Rs, 25,000 was spent on the construction. In this behalf the ipse dixit of the petitioner was, therefore, not accepted on its face value. Lastly, in regard to the payment of taxes the Administrator further held that they relate to the years 1973 to 1975 which circumstance would not clinch the issue as the question was not one of possession but as to whether there was a transfer of title.
5. ' On appeal the Board of Trustees held that in spite of the fact that the petitioner had paid Rs, 3,000 he did not care to have the document of title executed in his favor though there was ample opportunity for him to have the document executed and as for the agreement dated 21-8-1970, the Board further held that it purported to be a sale and not an agreement of sale and, therefore, it should have been registered for then there were no restrictions. On this view of the matter the Board did not accept the explanation of the petitioner that he could not get the sale deed executed as the 'specified person' had become untraceable. The Board also expressed its suspicion on the genuineness of the agreement on the basis that the non-judicial stamp papers were not purchased in the name of the petitioner the 'specified person' but by Mr. A. K. Nasim, an Advocate for 'Mr. Ghalib'. The Board further held that in spite of the letter of the Al-Hilal Society dated 16-10- 1970 rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking the membership of the Society, it was not possible to accept that the petitioner would have commenced the construction on the basis of the letter Exh. A-4 written to him on 24.9-1970 by the third respondent authorizing him to construct the house. Lastly, after the over all consideration of the material on record the Board held as under "One can easily see the ingenuity displayed by the appellant in fabricating all this evidence in his attempt to establish that the transaction was for all purposes complete prior to the crucial date under the Act i,e, 16-12-1971. Sui Gas or Electric hills which are for the period 1973 to 1975 are of no help to the appellant as they do not offer any proof the ownership."
6. ' Mr. Waheed frarooqi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no proper enquiry as is envisaged by sections 13(3) and 14(3) of the Act for he had no opportunity to lead oral evidence. Subsection (3) of section 13 and for that matter subsection (3) of section 14 provide for holding a summary enquiry and as to the procedure applicable, rule 7 of the Abandoned Properties (Taking Over and Management) Rules, 1975 states that it would be the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with the necessary modifications. The grievance is not confined to a defect in the procedure but to the opportunity not having been provided to the petitioner to lead oral evidence. It is abundantly clear from the order of the Administrator that the petitioner had filed the documents on which he relied and so also the affidavits of Murtaza Ahmed Zubairi, Habibullah and Abdul Qayyum in support of the application. The Administrator had considered this evidence while rejecting the application. If at all the petitioner had wanted to lead evidence he could have done so. There is, however, no indication that he in fact wanted to lead any oral evidence at that stage. In his memorandum of appeal no grievance was made of the fact that he was not allowed to lead oral evidence. On the contrary, in paragraph 4 of the grounds of appeal the petitioner took exception to the fact that the Administrator had failed to appreciate and consider the documents produced by him. Again in paragraph 5 a grievance was made of the fact that the Administrator hurriedly 'proceeded with the case' and he could not file certain documents which were misplaced and this resulted in miscarriage of justice. There is no grievance that he was not allowed to lead oral evidence. At the stage of appeal no such document was filed and not even a verbal grievance was made to the Board that the petititioner has had no opportunity to lead oral evidence in spite of the fact that the petitioner was represented by a counsel. On this view of the matter it is not possible to accept that the petitioner was prejudiced because of his having been denied the liberty to lead oral evidence.
7. On merits both the Tribunals of fact have applied their mind to the evidence on record and concluded against the petitioner. It is not a case where there is manifest misreading of evidence which could materially alter the decision of the case, nor a case where the finding is based on no evidence, nor where any question was left undetermined and on this view of the matter, we are unable to interfere with the finding of the Tribunals of fact in the exercise of Constitutional Jurisdiction.
8. ' The petition has no merit and is dismissed.