1989 PLP 118 (CLC)

(3)??????? Deputy Secretary, Land Commissioner, N.‑W.F.P., Peshawar for information please." The ,Counsel for the petitioners further stated that there is no law in the Land Reforms Act, 1977, for extension or condonation of delay. The only law about condonation of delay is section 5 of the Limitation Act which is not applicable to the Land Reforms cases. He quoted the following rulings in his support:‑ P L D 1986 Pesh.

87. P L D 1986 Pesh. 91.. P .L D 1986 Pesh. 90. 1986 C L C 2622. The Counsel further argued that the Petitioners in the instant case are the sitting tenants of the land (2000 PIUs) which was resumed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Mardan. These persons have vested valuable interests accrued to them by that order because this land was ordered to be allotted to the sitting tenants. When the appellants came to know about the appeal before the Land Commissioner, Peshawar, they moved an application to the Land Commissioner, Peshawar with the request that they should be made party to the case on 12‑5‑1987, Upon this application, the learned Land Commissioner, Peshawar, has passed no order for impleading them as party. Alongwith this application they also filed copies of Khasra Girdawaris showing them as tenants on the above‑mentioned land. Not even a passing remark has been passed by the Court on their application. He further submitted that the orders of the Chief Land Commissioner, Land Commissioner and Deputy Land Commissioner, are judicial orders and not executive orders as per rule 5 of the Land Reforms Rules, 1972 and other authorities as quoted below:‑ CPC Order 41, Rule 20 CPC Order 1, Rule 10 P L D 1983 SC 183 ("No one should be condemned unheard") In response to the above arguments the Counsel for the Respondents (Mst. Sultan Parwar Begum) stated that no appeal/revision lies to this Court. Nawabzada Ihsanullah Khan deceased husband of Mst. Sultan Parwar Begum was also owner of the land inherited from his father and she inherited properties both from her father Nawabzada Mohammad Akbar Khan of Hoti and deceased husband Ihsanullah Khan. Both wife and husband were issueless. Her age is about 70 years and she always remains bedridden due to various maladies and on the sudden death of her husband she being a "Pardanashin lady" was not aware of the extent of the ownership of Nawabzada Sahib and also remained all alone without any guide to look after her affairs. Moreover, the attorney of the respondents namely Amir Zada also died in those days and there was nobody in whom the respondent had trust to manage the affairs. This also resulted in the non?submission of declaration in time. Besides, the notice has also not been served properly. He further stated that the respondent did not know actually the total area; for giving the choice as which land is to be surrendered and which one is to be kept, as provided under section 4 of the Land Reforms Rules, 1977. The order of Deputy Land Commissioner presuming 2000 PIUs from the property of Mst. Sultar Parwar Beg um is against the rules. The Deputy Land Commissioner has failed to observe the mandatory provisions of sections 4 and 7(5) of the Land Reforms Act, 1977. Deputy Land Commissioner had to give a chance to declarant to exercise her choice. Settlement Tehsildar being Revenue Officer has got no jurisdiction to select the land to be resumed in favour of the Government.. The order under section 7 (5) of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 should be subject to confirmation by the Commission concerned within three months of making such order. The relevant section is reproduced:‑ "(5)????? Where a person fails to make a declaration under this section, an officer of the district concerned, who is authorised by a Commission in this behalf, shall, of his own motion or otherwise, and after calling for such information and recording such evidence as he may deem necessary, determine the land owned or possessed by such person in excess to his entitlement under this Act and make an order to this effect:‑ Provided that the order made under this subsection shall be subject to confirmation by the Commission concerned within three months of making such order." But in this case this legal formality has not been observed. Non‑observance of the mandatory provision of the law on the subject had made the Deputy Lard Commissioner's order dated 2‑11‑1986 nullity in the eyes of law. It is a bad order and has got no legal footings. Hence time for limitation is not running against bad order with no legal effect. Their request for impleading them as party, was not acceded to by the learned Land Commissioner because the Petitioners had no case for being heard simply by being shown as tenants in Khasra A Girdawari from the crop Kharif 1975 upto the crop Kharif 1987. Mutation No. 1028 entered on 2‑11‑1986 hardly gives any vested rights to them. The land has yet to be surrendered after completing many legal formalities and the declarant has to exercise her choice. The Khasra Nos. on which the petitioners were shown as tenants, may not be surrendered at all by the declarant. So the Petitioners cannot establish their locus standi and therefore, it is too early for them to claim any right of allotment /ownership at the present moment. Once the choice is exercised, the excess land to be so surrendered, becomes the property of Land Commission as per section 9 of the Land Reforms Rules, 1972. No person without his eligibility for the surrendered land, can become the allottee/owner of such land. Hence the Petitioners at present have got no ownership rights over the land of the declarant. After completing the legal formalities and surrender of the land by Declarant the Petitioners if eligible per law for allotment, may become owners in future. After hearing the arguments advanced by the Counsels for both the parties before me and perusal of the relevant record, I am of the view that the petitioners have got no case at this stage. Consequently, their appeal being premature, is rejected. Parties to bear their own costs. A.A./284/R????? Appeal dismissed.