1993 PLP 1697 (SCMR)

(For review of judgment dated 10‑8‑1989 passed in Shariat Appeals Nos.1, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10 of 1981; 21 of 1984 and 1 of 1987). (a) Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R.115)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Para. 8‑‑‑Land Reforms Act (II of 1977), S. 3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 203‑A to 203‑J & 253‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, OXXVI R.1‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court judgment wherein Court had declared S. 3, Land Reforms Act, 1977 and para 8, Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, as repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam ‑‑‑Subject‑matter of review petition was confined to reconsideration of the finding of Supreme Court that notwithstanding the Constitutional provisions contained in Art. .253 and the definition of "law" in Chap. III‑A (comprising Arts. 203‑A to 203‑J) of the Constitution, the Court had held that jurisdiction was possessed for holding the fixation of ceiling on land holdings to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam: ground for review was that by the judgment in question, a Constitutional provision had been rendered nugatory and such purpose could not be achieved as a Constitutional provision Art. 253 had been kept out of the definition of law contained in Art. 203‑B (c) of the Constitution; other ground of attack was that Court having held that it was permissible in Islam to have a ceiling on land holding fixed, Court should not have proceeded to declare S.3, Land Reforms Act, 1977 and para. 8, Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 as repugnant to Injunctions of Islam, as such provisions only fix the ceiling‑‑‑Rehearing of the matter whether permissible‑‑‑Presence and effect of Art. 253 of the Constitution on the jurisdiction of the Court seized of a matter under Chap. III‑A (comprising Arts. 203‑A to 203‑J) was considered at great length in the various opinions recorded on that specific subject‑‑‑Petitioner was actually seeking re‑hearing of the matter so far as such particular question was concerned and not invocation of any of the grounds available for getting the judgment reviewed‑‑‑Such a rehearing or reconsideration of the matter in review was not permissible under the law. The judgment although upheld the fixing of a ceiling on land holding but it did so with two important limitations or qualifications. The first was that such a law fixing the ceiling on land holding could not be applied retrospectively so as to deprive the people of land in excess of the ceiling so fixed. The second was that violation of the ceiling limit could be prospectively penalized and controlled only in cases of voluntary acquisition of property. Involuntary accretions resulting in exceeding the ceiling as in the matter of inheritance, could not be penalized by forfeiture of the excess or its resumption. As the provision of the fixation of ceiling in the Land Reforms Act, 1977 was coupled with these two vicious or repugnant features, the ceiling so fixed was itself declared to be repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. It was not that the fixation of ceiling in the abstract and prospectively was considered repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. An elaborate discussion had taken place in the judgment with regard to the definition of `person' contained in subsection (7) of section 2 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 so as to include an Islamic Waqf and other charitable institutions of like nature in order to hold that such institutions had a distinctive character and could not be treated as individuals or persons brought under the regulatory provisions of the Land Reforms Act. The distinctive features having been brought out in the judgment, no case was made out for modification of the view or its reversal, (b) Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑OXXVI, R. 1‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court judgment‑‑‑Review application was barred by 114 days for which no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming‑‑‑On merits too, no case for review had been made out‑‑‑Review of judgment in question was declined m circumstances.