1. ' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---This appeal through special leave of the Court has been preferred by the Board of Trustees Abandoned Properties (Cabinet Division), Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, through its Chairman against the judgment, dated 23-2-1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in a Constitutional petition bearing number 1419 of 1996 which was filed by the respondents herein being aggrieved of the order, dated 13-11-1996 passed by the appellants.
2. ' The summary of relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that a plot bearing No,227-C situated in Street No,30, in F.7/1, Islamabad was allotted by Capital Development Authority (CDA), Islamabad to one Mian Muhammad Mansoor Ali, former Member of National Assembly of Pakistan from Khulna (East Pakistan) on 23-8-1967. The above named allottee appointed one Muzaffar Ahmed, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent as his special attorney and later entered into a contract of sale of the plot in the year 1969 with Muzaffar Ahmed for a consideration of Rs,70,000. The purchaser having paid the price of the plot in full to the allottee sent an intimation to the Capital Development Authority (C.D.A.), Islamabad about the sale of plot in his favour. The said Muzaffar Ahmed shortly after completion of transaction of sale of plot proceeded to England for his medical check-up/treatment and stayed abroad till the separation of Pakistan in 1970. The properties belonging to the East Pakistanis (Bangladeshis) were declared as abandoned properties through promulgation of Act XX of 1975 and the plot in question was also treated as abandoned property under the aforesaid Act. Muzaffar Ahmed while staying abroad appointed one Javed Iqbal as his special attorney to pursue the matter before the Administrator Abandoned Properties, Islamabad, for release of the plot. The Deputy Administrator having scrutinized the claim of Muzaffar Ahmed, recommended for confirmation of the sale of plot by the allottee in his favour vide order, dated 1- 8-1988 but the Board of Trustees while disagreeing with the recommendations, sent the case back to the Deputy Administrator for reconsideration and the Deputy Administrator on remand in the light of observations made by the Board of Trustees rejected the claim of Muzaffar Ahmed, vide order, dated 18-6-1989. Muzaffar Ahmed challenged this order in the Lahore High Court through a writ petition bearing No,423 of 1989 which was allowed and the High Court while setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Administrator sent the case back to him for decision of the application of Muzaffar Ahmed for release of plot afresh. In post-remand proceedings, the respondents produced a bundle of documents (Exh.A-1 to A-35) including the agreement of sale of plot by the allottee to Muzaffar Ahmed. The Deputy Administrator having made part of record the photo copies of these documents returned the originals to the respondents and while placing reliance on these documents, accepted the application of Muzaffar Ahmed for release of the plot in question from the pool of abandoned properties vide order, dated 29-2-1992 and in consequence thereto C.D.A. On receipt of transfer fee of Rs,2,45,570 transferred the plot in name of Muzaffar Ahmed. The Board of Trustees being not satisfied with the order of Deputy Administrator while proceeding in exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 15(3) of the Act XX of 1975 through order, dated 13-6-1996, set aside the order passed by the Deputy Administrator and treated the plot as part of pool of abandoned properties. This order of the Board of Trustees was challenged by the respondents before the Lahore High Court through a Constitutional petition bearing No,1419 of 1996 and a learned Single Judge in the High Court vide impugned judgment, dated 23-2-1999 allowed the writ petition with the following observations:-- ' "Net result of the above discussion would show that the Board of Trustees by not taking into consideration the original documents available on the record and referred to and dismissed by the Deputy Administrator in his order proceeded to set aside the order of the Deputy Administrator for reasons wholly untenable. The Constitutional petition is accordingly accepted, the order passed by the Board of Trustees is set aside and that of the Deputy Administrator releasing the property from the pool of the abandoned properties is restored. The parties are left to bear their own costs."
3. ' The appellants being aggrieved of the acceptance of the writ petition filed a petition t'or special leave to appeal bearing No,900 of 1999 in which leave was granted by this Court vide order, dated 16-12-199 in the following terms:-- "Leave is, inter alia, granted to the petitioner to examine the question whether the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that Plot No,1, Street No,30 in Sector F-7/1, Islamabad had been validly transferred to Muzaffar Ahmad, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, as admittedly the document of sale had not yet been registered and the provisions of sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act had not yet been complied with. The status quo order earlier granted in favour of the petitioners shall continue to operate till the final disposal of the appeal."
4. ' Learned Deputy Attorney-General has contended that the observations made by the learned Judge in the High Court in para. 12 of the impugned judgment would lead to the conclusion that the order passed by the Board of Trustees was defective as the original documents placed on record on behalf of the respondents were not considered therefore, the matter was required to be sent back to the Board of Trustees for determination of the claim of the respondents in the light of said documents but the learned Judge while himself undertaking the exercise of scrutiny of documents, declared the same genuine without providing proper opportunity of rebuttal to the appellants. The learned Deputy Attorney-General added that the comparison of the signatures of Mian Muhammad Mansoor Ali the original allottee, on the application moved by him for allotment of the plot with his signatures on the sale agreement, would show that the signatures on the agreement were not in his hands which would negate the genuineness of sale agreement, therefore, the claim of the respondents for release of the plot on the basis of the said agreement was bound to be rejected. It was next argued by the learned Deputy Attorney-General that in any case, the unregistered sale agreement would not create any right in favour of Muzaffar Ahmed in the property before the target date, therefore, the same would not be a legal document of title.
5. ' The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, while heavily placing reliance on the observations made by the learned Judge in the High Court regarding the character of the transaction and the documents brought on record contended that the stipulation in the agreement would essentially bring the transaction within the definition of sale which would confer rights of ownership in the property to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents. Learned Deputy Attorney-General, on the other hand, argued that mere recital of payment of sale consideration in the agreement would not be sufficient to convey the title and acquire the status of sale without registration of agreement under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and would only be relevant for collateral purposes.
6. The properties left by East Pakistanis now Bangladeshis in West Pakistan (Pakistan) would be classified into the two categories. The first category of such property would fall under section 13 of the Abadoned Properties Act, 1975 and the second category would be governed by section 14 of the said Act. The properties which do not involve any interest of a third person would become part of the pool of abandoned properties and the properties in which permanent interest of third person was created by the original allottee through sale, gift, exchange of any other manner before the target date, subject to the necessary scrutiny would be treated as private properties and would not form part of the pool of abandoned properties. In the light of above classification of abandoned properties, if a transaction of sale in respect of a property was completed before the target date, the legal status of such property under the Abandoned Properties Act, 1925 would definitely be that of not abandoned property and would not ipso facto form part of the pool and shall be subject to the scrutiny of the interest of a third person by the Administrator, Abandoned Properties under section 14 of the ibid Act. The claim of predecessor-in-interest of present respondents regarding the purchase of plot by him, from the original allottee was scrutinized by the Deputy Administrator who, having found it genuine, recommended for release of plot from the pool of abandoned properties.
7. ' Section 14 of the Act XX of 1975 provides as under:-- "14. Claims by interested persons.--(1) Any person claiming any right or interest in any property treated by the Administrator as abandoned property may prefer a claim to the Administrator on the ground that--
(a) the property is not abandoned property; or
(b) his interest in the property has not been affected by the provisions of this Act.
(2) An application under subsection (1) shall be made within the prescribed period being a period of not less than thirty days from the prescribed date.
(3) On receiving an application under subsection (2), the Administrator shall hold a summary inquiry in the prescribed manner and, after taking such evidence as may be produced shall pass an order stating the reasons therefor, rejecting the application or allowing it wholly or in part on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit to impose."
8. ' The learned Judge in the High Court in para. 15 of the judgment observed as under:-- "15. Now let us proceed to examine and evaluate the reasons made by the Board of Trustees as the basis of its orders. The Board of Trustees has recorded a finding that transaction between the parties having been witnessed by an unregistered document did not satisfy the requirement of law and could not as such be taken notices of. This finding recorded by Board of Trustees is belied by the fact and law for the reasons that Transfer of Property Act is not applicable in Islamabad. The other reason is that entire consideration was received by Mian Muhammad Mansoor Ali and possession of the plot was delivered to the vendee, intimation was sent to the C.D.A. Which in law and equity was sufficient to constitute a sale in favour of Muzaffar Ahmed, Reference in this behalf is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as Ali Ahmad and others v.
9. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (1984 SCMR 1200) Mst. Qamar Jehan v. Government of Pakistan through Board of Trustees of Abandoned Properties (1993 M LD 1104), Muhammad Rafi Ullah v. Board of Trustees (1987 M LD 558) and Illyasib Minhas v. Board of Trustees Abandoned Properties and 2 others (1990 CLC page 862)."
10. ' The case of Muzaffar Ahmed, predecessor-in-interest of respondent before the Deputy Administrator was that the original allottee Mian Mansoor Ali executed an agreement of sale on receipt of total consideration of rupees 70,000 through a separate receipt and also delivered the original documents relating to the allotment of plot and thus the transaction was a complete sale for all intents and purposes which was also got notified in the C.D.A.
11. ' The Deputy Administrator after detailed discussion of the objection relating to the delay in filing the application by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent, for release for plot from the pool of abandoned properties, condoned the delay and allowed the application with the following conclusions:-- "19. After hearing the counsel on both sides and having carefully gone through the record I have gone to the following conclusion:-- ' "The power of attorney Exh.A/1 and the Sale Agreement Exh.A/4 coupled with the facts that the petitioner is in possession of all original documents, including allotment order and allied correspondence leads one to the inevitable conclusion that the transaction claimed has taken place between the specified person and the petitioner. Consideration involved is also fair enough in view of the prices prevailing in the market during the deal. The petitioner evidence corroborates the applicant case on all material points. The letter of Mr. Muhammad Mansur Ali, dated 25-8-1971, on page 31/C of CDA file further gives cementing support to the person of petitioners. Similarly, affidavit of Muhammad Mansur Ali, vendor attested by Notary Public Khulna, Banglaesh, dated 17- 7-1988, sent to the Chairman (BOT) page 106-107/C also' fully support the claim of petitioner, Muzaffar Ahmad
20. To satisfy myself, I recalled the Attorney of the petitioner Mr. Muzaffar Ahmed, hearing him, I feel that this case is a genuine one.
21. In view of the above, the petition is hereby accepted and the Plot No,1 (Old No,227/C) Street No,30, Sector F-7/1, Islamabad, is hereby released from the pool of abandoned property in favour of the petitioner Muzaffar Ahmed.
22. All persons concerned, including C.D.A., be informed accordingly and the record of C.D.A.
12. Returned."
13. Leave was granted to consider the effect of non-registration of agreement of sale in terms of sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. In the normal circumstances a document purported to create rights and interest in immovable property of the value of more than one hundred rupees requires compulsory registration as the document of title without registration being of no consequence would not pass the title but the claim of ownership in the abandoned property being subject to the scrutiny under section 14 of the Abandoned Properties Act, 1975, would need determination on the basis of documents of title either registered or unregistered and if such documents are found sufficient to establish the right of ownership in the property, the claim of a person cannot be rejected merely on the ground that sale agreement was not registered. It may be observed that tke change in the ownership of the properties which are situated in the capital territory of Islamabad and are subject to the C.D.A. Building Regulations (1993), can happen in the record of C.D.A., under the abovesaid Regulations read with the Rules framed thereunder without execution of a registered or unregistered document and the transaction of sale and purchase of such properties between the private parties can be effected on payment of transfer fee to the C.D.A. Without the compliance of sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, therefore, registration of an agreement of sale of an immovable property in the capital territory would not be stricto senso needed and consequently, the non-compliance of sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 would not affect the right of a person in the property. The Deputy Administrator having made a detailed scrutiny of the claim of respondents in the light of an unregistered agreement of title in his possession, came to the conclusion that it was actually executed by the original allottee and was a genuine document. The Deputy Administrator having extensively tested the truthfulness and authenticity of the documents including the agreement of sale of plot by the original allottee in favour of Muzaffar Ahmed with full propensity held that the same were genuine and consequently made a declaration in favour of said Muzaffar Ahmed, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. Suffice to say that the finding given by the Deputy Administrator was not suffering from misreading or non-reading of evidence to justify the rejection of his claim by' the Board and deprive the respondents from their legitimate right of ownership of plot. The Deputy Administrator having determined the genuineness of the documents and the claim of Muzaffar Ahmed concluded that sale of plot in question by the original allottee in his favour was established on record and we find that said finding remained unrebutted before the Board of Trustees and further the High Court having made a detailed scrutiny of all questions of law and facts rightly held that the verdict given by the Deputy Administrator was legal, therefore, the question relating to the effect of non-compliance of provisions of sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act,1908 would need no further debate.
14. ' We having examined the matter in detail find that judgment of High Court impugned before us being unexceptionable would not call for any interference and for the above reasons we do not find any substance in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.