2002 SCMR 1317 (PLP)

FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek the grant of leave from' the judgment and decree dated 8‑4‑1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.S.A. No. 775 of 1975.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Mst. Sabhraee respondent No.3 sold her land measuring 25 acres and 18 Kanals to respondents Nos.l and 2 by registered sale‑deed dated 9‑5‑1960 (Exh.D/3) for a consideration of Rs.12,

500. Mutation of sale was accordingly sanctioned but the same was subsequently reviewed by the Collector on the ground of being in violation of M.L.R. 64 as the remaining land of respondent No.3 would have gone below the subsisting holding. Thereafter, the respondent No.3. Mst. Sabhraee purportedly transferred the disputed land in favour of the petitioners by way of gift vide Mutations Nos.48 and 49 sanctioned on 8‑6‑1966. The respondents Nos.l and 2 filed an appeal against the cancellation of their mutation of sale which was Accepted by the Additional Commissioner, Multan Division. Consequently, the mutation was restored in their favour. The petitioners moved a revision petition there against which was dismissed on 19‑3‑1968 by the Member, Board of Revenue. Then, the petitioners filed a civil suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the sale of disputed land by the respondent No.3 in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and also against the order dated 19‑3‑1968 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue. The civil suit of the petitioners was dismissed by the Civil Court for lack of. jurisdiction. The first appeal of the petitioners and R.S.A. No.775 of 1975 were also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sahiwal and the Lahore High Court by judgments and decrees dated 25‑11‑1975 and 8‑4‑1999 respectively.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that respondent No.3 was owner of 36 acres and 18 Kanals of land out of which she sold land measuring 25 acres and 18 Kanals. The remaining land of the respondent No.3 being less than the subsisting holding, the sale by her was hit by the provisions of M.L.R.64. It was further submitted that respondent No.3 had duly gifted her entire land in favour of the petitioners. It was lastly contended that the Civil Court, instead of dismissing the civil suit, could keep the same pending by referring the petitioners to move the Chief Land Commissioner in the matter in view of dictum laid down in the case of Nasir Ahmad Khan v. Mst. Ismat Jehan Begum (1968 SCMR 667).

4. On the other hand, the learned' counsel for the respondents Nos. l and 2 submitted that at the time of sale of the land' to the respondents Nos. I and 2, the respondent No. 3 ‑ was shown to be the owner of 25 acres and 18 Kanals of land. It was a result of litigation that respondent No.3 subsequently happened to acquire another 11 acres of land. As such, there was no violation of any of the provisions of M.L.R. 64 or any other law for the time being in force for the sale of the land to the said respondents. The learned counsel placed reliance on the cases of Mst. Aisha Bibi v. Nazir Ahmad and 10 others (1994 SCMR 1935) and Khushi Muhammad and 9 others v. The Chief Land Commissioner, Sindh at Hyderabad and 17 others (1993 SCMR 878) in support of his contention that the question of any violation of M.L.R. 64 called the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 could be examined only by the Revenue Authorities and the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was ousted in the matter.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The question of jurisdiction of Civil Courts has to be considered in the light of the provisions of M.L.R. 64 of 1959. Paragraph 3 of M.L.R.64 clearly provides that the provisions of this Regulation, and any rule or order made thereunder, shall have effect, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law, or in any order or decree of Court or other authority, or in any rule of custom or usage or in any contract instrument deed or other document. Sub‑para. (6) of paragraph 6 thereof lays down that any dispute arising in carrying into effect the provisions of the Regulation shall be referred to the Land Reforms Commission. By paragraph 27 of M.L.R. 64 the jurisdiction of the Courts is barred in respect of any matter which the Commission, or any officer acting under the authority of Commission, is empowered to determine The learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to persuade us as to how the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts could be invoked to determine the question whether the transaction was hit by M.L.R. 64 or not. In the case of Mst. Aisha Bibi (supra) it was held that the power to declare any transaction as offending the provisions of M.L.R. 64 was vested in the Land Commission or the Land Commissioner and the jurisdiction of A the Civil Court was expressly. excluded. Even in the case of Nasir Ahmad Khan (supra), referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it was held that the Land Reforms Commission was the final Judge to decide the question of a transaction being hit by the provisions of M.L.R.

64. The same view was taken in the cases of Mst. Hajiani v. West Pakistan Land Commission, Lahore (PLD 1966 SC 114) and K.B. Mian Feroze Shah v. Nawabzada Muhammad Umar Khan and others (PLD 1966 SC 340). The impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court.

6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed accordingly, no order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K/I-48/S Petition dismissed.