P L D 1975 Lahore 99 (PLP)

K. M. A. SAMDANI, J.-The petitioners are sisters enter as and joint owners of agricultural land in Districts Rahimyar Khan and Dera Ghazi Khan. Their land is in excess of the limit permitted under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. They have filed declarations as required by the Regulation. But certain alienations of land made by them between 1st March 1967, and 20th December 1971, are under scrutiny and their validity is yet to be determined under paragraph 7 of the Regulation. However, before deciding the question of the validity of those alienations the Land Commission appears to have called upon the petitioners to surrender the land in excess of the permissible limit and to make their choice of land to be retained so that the excess land may be resumed by the Government under the provisions of the Regulation.

2. The main grievance of the petitioners, as expressly stated in the writ petition, is that they are being compelled to exercise their choice and surrender excess land before they know that alienations made by them are going to be held void, if at all. According to them any choice made by them at this stage will prejudice their interest. They further assert that unless the fate of their alienations is known, they will not be able to interchange the whole or any part of the excess area with any member of their family for the purpose of consolidation, as permitted under sub-para. (2) of para. 11 of the Regulation. So, they pray that the notices -served upon them by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan (Annexures B-1 to B-3) be declared to have been issued without lawful authority.

3. But the grievance of the petitioners seems to be more imaginary than real. For, it is not impossible or impraticable for the petitioners to comply with the notices issued to them without in any manner prejudicing their rights as interests. Although no details about the land owned by the petitioners or the land alienated by them have been given in the petition, which we consider to be a serious omission, the learned counsel for the petitioners admits at the bar that even after deducting the alienated land the petitioners' holdings exceed the permissible limit. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioners are in any case under an obligation to file declarations. As for the question of exercising their choice, what they are supposed to do for the time being is to assume that all the alienations under scrutiny will be held, void, and, on this assumption, to exercise their choice only provisionally, that is, subject to the result of the scrutiny. If subsequently all or any of the alienations are found to be valid for the purposes of the Land Reforms Regulation, the petitioners can revise their choice. A similar situation had arisen under the Land Reforms Regulation of 1959, though from different circumstances, which was dealt with in Khair Muhammad Khan: v. State P L D 1966 S C

604. In that case the declarant was the owner of an estate which included a lake. The question as to whether lakes should be treated as `land' within the meaning of the said Regulation was under consideration with the Land Commission, when the declarant was called upon to exercise his choice in respect of the land he wished to retain. So, he exercised his choice with the reservation that he would revise it after the question regarding lakes had been finally decided by the Land Commission. After the decision, however, his right to revise the choice, made by him earlier, was challenged. But the Supreme Court held that in view of the change in the situation resulting from the decision of the Land Commission regarding lakes, the declarant had the right to revise his option. The Court made the following observation :- "It is clear that unless he knows what he can and what he cannot retain, and what valuations are set upon the different categories of land which he possesses, he cannot be in any position to exercise that right of final selection." We are, therefore, of the view that by making their provisional choice the petitioners will not be in any way jeopardizing their right to make the final selection after the question of the validity of their alienations has been decided. Similarly, if they want to interchange any of the excess area with their family members, they can do so provisionally now and revise it subsequently if all or any of their alienations are held to be valid. Since the impugned notices have not been shown in any manner to have affected or to be likely to affect the rights of the petitioners, they cannot be said to be aggrieved by those notices.

4. The second grievance of the petitioners is that the Land Commission is going to resume provisionally such land in excess of the permissible limit as is the subject of appeal, revision or litigation, under the authority of a notification issued on the 23rd of April 1973 (Annexure D) in the purported exercise of the powers conferred on the Land Commission by sub-paragraph 8 of paragraph 4 of the Regulation.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the vires of the notification on various grounds. But suffice it to say that no action under the notification having so far been taken against the petitioners, it will be premature to examine its validity. However, if after the petitioners have complied with the notices issued to them, anything is done by the Land Commission, which in their view, is in violation of their rights or in contra vention of the provisions of the Regulation, they may, if so advised, invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court as a last resort.

6. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. S. A. H. Petition dismissed.