1994 PLP 1112 (SCMR)
FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION through its Chairman‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HAYAT MUHAMMAD KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1112 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Fazal Ilahi Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION through its Chairman‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HAYAT MUHAMMAD KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1112 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1112 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Fazal Ilahi Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1112 (SCMR) (FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION through its Chairman‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HAYAT MUHAMMAD KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dated 21‑4‑1993, in W.P. No. 22/1977‑BWP and W.P. No.129/1977‑BWP). ‑‑‑‑Paras. 7 & 29 ‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Alienation of land through gift in favour of heirs by declarant‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Such alienations were immune from scrutiny‑‑‑Functionary of Land Commission rightly gave effect to said alienations ‑‑‑Order passed by High Court with regard to said alienations declaring them to be immune from scrutiny was unexceptionable‑‑ Leave to appeal was, thus, refused. Mst. Tayyub Khanam v. Chairman, Federal Land Commission 1984 SCMR 1110 rel.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑‑The Federal Land Commission, petitioner herein, seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 21‑4‑1993, of the Lahore High Court (Bahawalpur Bench) whereby Writ Petition No.22 of 1977 and Writ Petition No.129 of 1977‑BWP, were allowed and the order dated 20‑9‑1976, passed therein, by the petitioner was set aside.
2. One Hayat Muhammad Khan a declarant under Martial Law Regulation 115 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulation") vide three mutations attested on 2‑1‑1969, gifted away agricultural land situate in three villages in favour of his two sons and his wife. These transactions were also reflected in relevant Register Haqdaran Zameen.
3. The petitioner, in the year 1976, scrutinised these three mutations presumably under para. 29 of the Regulation, and declared the same incomplete and void.
4. The decision of the petitioner dated 20‑9‑1976, was challenged by the declarant through Writ Petition No.129 of 1977 BWP, which was‑allowed and the impugned order was declared to be of no legal effect. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
5. Learned Deputy Attorney General contended that no doubt, the alienation of the land by the donor to the heirs were immune from scrutiny, but in the case of mutations in question the same were incomplete and void transactions therefore, were rightly declared as such by the Federal Land Commission and the land involved therein counted towards the holding of the declarant. He, however, was unable to show that the transactions in question were not bona fide. On the contrary the law laid down in Mst. Tayyub Khanam v. Chairman, Federal Land Commission (1984 SCMR 1110), fully takes care of point involved in this case. The alienations of land through gift made by the declarant were admittedly in favour of his heirs and immune from scrutiny under para. 7 of the Regulation. The Deputy Land Commissioner, rightly gave effect to these transactions. The order passed by the learned Single Judge following the dictum of this Court in the above noted case is unexceptionable. In our view, therefore, this is not a fit case for interference in the impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court. Consequently this petition is dismissed and leave refused. A.A./F‑282/S. Leave refused.