P L D 1984 Lahore 228 (PLP)

KAMAL MUSTAFA BOKHARY, J.‑This is a constitutional petition challeng ing order, dated 27‑5‑1974 of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore accepting revision of respondent No. 1 and its order, dated 8‑11‑1.974, rejecting review petition of the petitioners At the arguments stage petitioners also verbally challenged order, dated. 16‑2‑1980. (Annex ure R‑3 with the written statement of heirs of respondent No. 1) passed by the Member, Federal Land Commission, without amending the writ petition.

2. Respondent No. I as a civil servant filed declaration of his agricul tural land under Martial Law Regulation No.

115. The Deputy Land Com missioner, Sahiwal, on 26‑11‑1973, allowed respondent No. 1 to retain 60 Acres 7 Kanals 1 Maria inherited agricultural land in district Lyallpur and further allowed him 100 acres out of 204 acres 2 Kanals land in Chak No. 425/E. B. Tehsil Pakpattan plus an additional area of 16 Acres 4 Kanals as owner of tubewell. The remaining area measuring 87 Acres 0 Kanals be longing to respondent No. 1 was resumed in favour of the Land Com mission with the direction to file choice of surrendered Area. Appeal of respondent No. 1 against it was dismissed by the learned Land Com missioner, Multan, on 14‑2‑1974. Respondent No. 1 then challenged it in revision which was accepted by the learned Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore, on 27‑5‑1974. It was held that since interest in the land measuring 72 acres 1 Kanal 3 Marlas was acquired by respondent No. 1 in the year 1955 the same could not be counted to wards his ceiling of 100 acres under paragraph 10 of M. L. R.

115. It was also held that the said land was not acquired, by respondent No. I from his father‑in‑law because the latter had transferred it to his daughter and grand‑daughters. Therefore, it was directed that the said area of land be not counted towards the total ceiling of respondent No. 1 under para graph 10 of M. L. R.

115. Thereafter, on 8‑I I‑1974, claiming to be tenants of some land of respondent No. 1 in Chak No. 425/E. B., Tehsil Pakpattan, petitioners filed a time‑barred application under rule 12 of Punjab Land Reforms Rules for review of the order dated 27‑5‑1974. It was dismissed in limine by the learned Additional Chief Land Commissioner on 8‑11‑1974. The matter was taken up in sun motu revision by the learned Member, Federal, Land Commission who accepted plea on behalf of res pondent No. 1 and recalled notice issued to him under paragraph 29 of M. L. R. 115, on 16‑2‑1980. Petitioners were not party before any of the aforementioned Courts except in the proceeding of their own application for review.

3. On behalf of heirs of respondent No. 1 a preliminary objection was taken that petitioners had no locus standi to file the writ petition. It was contended that respondent No. 1 having not yet exercised his right of choice petitioners had no interest in the laud yet to be surrendered. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 relied on Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari and 37 others v. Sh. Muhammad Rashid, Chairman, Federal Land Commission and another (P L D 1981 Lah. 159) and Muhammad Hidayatullah Khan and others v. Federal Land Commission and another (P L D.1977 Lab. 166). It was further submitted that petitioners were in fact not a party before the Deputy Land Commissioner, the Land Commissioner, the Additional Chief Land ' Commissioner or the learned Member; Federal Land Commission. It was then contended that petitioners bad no locus standi also because they were not persons aggrieved of the orders passed by the aforementioned authorities. On behalf of the petitioners it was contended that petitioners being tenants of some land under respon dent No. I they were interested persons under rule 12 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972 and respondent No. 2 dismissed their petition of review without lawful authority. It was also contended that respondent No. 2 failed to interpret the word `interest' in its impugned order, dated 8‑11‑1974. Learned ‑counsel for‑‑ the petitioners. Also addressed arguments on merits.

4. A civil servant is required 'under paragraph 10 of the M. L. R. 115 to make a declaration and retain land according to the provisions contained in paragraph 8 thereof. After the area in excess of its entitlement is determined under the Land Reforms the excess area vests in the Land Commission under paragraph 13 of M. L. R. No. 115 but the same is to be surrendered by the declarant after exercising his choice under paragraph

11. It is only thereafter that the excess land surrendered by the declarant is to be utilized under paragraph 18 by giving it to the tenants of the sur rendered land and in the absence thereof to tenant of some other land. In the case in hand the revision of respondent No. I was accepted and the orders for resumption of excess area of land were set aside. Therefore, the right of petitioners had not commenced. The interest of petitioners as, tenants in this case was contingent and that too uncertain and remote. Until such time that the land is finally resumed and vests in the Government no right is created in favour of the tenant. The choice oft landlord about the area to be retained or to be exchanged under para graph 11 of M. L. R. 115 must precede the resumption of land. It cannot be limited by para. 18 thereof for the sake of rights of tenants likely to accrue in the land yet to be surrendered. Petitioners have failed to show that their rights recognized by law have been denied to them. Petitioners were also not party before the Land Commission. Petitioners have no locus standi to file this constitutional petition. On merits the case stands' concluded by findings of facts by the Land Commission authorities who passed the impugned 'orders with lawful authority. For the foregoing reasons this petition ‑is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.Y.H Petition dismissed.