1987 PLP 2355 (CLC)

‑‑‑ Paras. 8(2) & 29‑ ‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑ Declarant filing Form No.LR‑VII seeking concession being owner of tractor in good working condition‑ ‑Provincial Land Commissioner allowing such concession but same withdrawn by Chairman, Federal Land Commission on ground that tractor was not produced before Assistant Commissioner and receipt of ownership of tractor was not beyond a uspicion‑ ‑Receipt produced by declarant to prove that he was owner of tractor relied upon by Chief Land Commissioner, held, was wrongly rejected by Chairman, Federal Land ommission‑ ‑Order of withdrawal of concession, passed being not legally tenable was set aside by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction‑ ‑Case was remanded to Provincial Land Commission with direction for fresh decision in accordance with law. Kh. Ahmed Tariq Raheem for Appellant. Talib H. Rizvi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th May, 1987. MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑The petitioner filed a declaration Form No. LR‑VII seeking concession of 2000 P.

1. Units, under paragraph 8(2) of Martial Law Regulation No.115 on the ground that he was owner of a tractor in good working condition. The Provincial Land Commission vide order dated 27‑6‑1973 allowed the concession in favour of the petitioner but the Chairman, Federal Land Commission in exercise of his suo motu jurisdiction under paragraph 29 of MLR‑115, vide his order dated 31‑7‑1975 withdrew the concession on the ground that the tractor was not produced before the Assistant Commissioner and the receipt produced to prove ownership of the tractor in favour of the petitioner was not beyond suspicion.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that non‑production of the tractor by itself is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner is not owner of the tractor. He had further stated that the receipt produced by the petitioner to show that he was owner of the tractor was erroneously rejected by the respondent on entertaining unfounded suspicion.

3. Learned counsel representing the Federal Land Commission could not controvert the contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioner.

4. We have perused the impuned order and the documents on the file and find that the learned Chairman, Federal Land Commission had set aside order of the Provincial Land Commission or irrelevant consideration. The receipt produced by the petitioner to prove that 'he was owner of the tractor relied upon by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner was wrongly rejected by the Chairman ' Federal Land Commission. In this view of the matter the impugned order passed by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission based on irrelevant consideration is not legally tenable and is, therefore, declared to be of no legal effect. This petition is allowed and the case is remanded to the Provincial Land Commission for fresh decision in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. A.A. /A‑98/L Petition allowed.