1989SCMR1024 (PLP)

GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑This appeal is by leave of this Court. On 12‑10‑1970, Peer Bakhsh alias Malik Haq Nawaz son of Qadar Bakhsh Khan, resident of Mauza Sangi, Tehsil and District Multan, gifted ten squares of land in village Sangi to Mst. Aqeedat Jabeen, his daughter‑in‑law. The gift was in lieu of dower. On coming into force of Martial Law Regulation 115, Peer Bakhsh filed necessary declaration pertaining to the land gifted by him to his daughter‑in‑law. The transaction was not approved upto the level of Chairman, Federal Law Commission. So the appellant invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court. She partially succeeded. The matter was remanded to the Federal Land Commission for fresh decision in accordance with law. On remand Senior Member, Federal Land Commission, took cognizance of the matter. He heard the parties, examined the relevant record but again came to the same conclusion as previously arrived at. The appellant's claim was turned down. Appellant for the second time approached the Lahore High Court. She filed Writ Petition No.8294/80. It was dismissed in limine. Thereafter she riled petition for special leave to appeal in this Court. Leave was granted by order, dated 6‑12‑80 to examine two points‑‑First whether the Federal Land Commission abided by the direction given by the High Court when the case was remanded and secondly whether the High Court erred in law in observing that the appellant being a donee could not challenge the orders passed by the Federal Land Commission as those were only meant to affect the interest of the declarants. ' We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. His main grievance was that the appellant was not given opportunity to lead evidence in support of her claim. Learned counsel submitted that had the appellant been given proper opportunity she would have satisfied the Land Commission regarding her clam and entitlement. In this sequence learned counsel drew our attention to the application at page 63 of the paper book which contains the details of the evidence the appellant wanted to produce. Learned counsel contended that it was the legal right of the appellant to bring that evidence on record and it was the legal obligation of respondents 3 to 6 to allow request for the same. Its denial rendered the impugned orders contrary to law. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant having been directly affected by the orders of the Federal Land Commission, she was thus an aggrieved party and the adequate remedy was the Constitution petition before the High Court. We have also heard learned counsel for the other side who supported the impugned orders on the ground that the Land Commission committed no legal error so as to justify interference. There appears to be good deal of force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. It was the legal right of the appellant to lead all the necessary evidence m support of her case. We are, therefore, of the view that this case shall have to be sent back once again to the Federal Land Commission so that the matter be decided afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant to lead necessary evidence in support of her claim. Order accordingly. It is really unfortunate that the case is being remitted especially when the litigation commenced in the year 1972 and since then the matter is in the melting pot. The Land Commission shall, therefore, take immediate steps to finalize the matter as early as possible. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. A.A./A‑430/S Case remanded.