1986 PLP 2356 (MLD)

This case was taken up in exercise of powers of suo motu revision under paragraph 29 of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 on the basis of the inquiry conducted into the declaration filed by the respondent under the Regulation. In her declaration form, the respondent had claimed inter alia the following alienation to have been made by her before the crucial date of 20‑12‑1971. Name of estate No. and nature of mutation Area Date of sanction of mutation Rashidabad 253 (Oral Tamleeq) in favour of her husband. 250 Acres (7846 PIUs) Pending ??????????????????????? The Head of Inspection Team had recommended that this transaction should not be declared valid on the grounds that the mutation had not been sanctioned before the crucial date of 20‑12‑1971, possession was not transferred until Rabi 1972, the date of statement on behalf of the declarant in the Register of Mutations appears to be tampered with and the statement itself was made not by the declarant but by her general attorney. The case was first taken up under paragraph 29 of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 in 1976 when the transaction in question was declared void vide Federal Lahd Commission's order, dated 28‑12‑1976 on the short ground that the transaction was a gift from wife to husband which was not permissible as husband was not a person mentioned in Explanation I to paragraph 7(1)(b) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The Federal Land Commission's order did not go into any of the points raised in the Inspection Team's report mentioned above. The Federal Land Commission's order was challenged before the Lahore High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 2575 and 3668 of 1977 which were decided in favour of the petitioners, and the Federal Land Commission's order was set aside as it had patently failed to take into account Punjab Land Commission's notification, dated 5‑5‑1972 under paragraph 7(1)(b) which provided that on the analogy of owner's wife, owner's husband shall also be covered under the proviso to sub‑paragraph (1)(b) of paragraph 7 of the aforesaid Regulation and shall be treated as having been included in Explanation I appearing under sub‑paragraph 1(b) of paragraph 7 of the Regulation. Having set aside the order on the ground that it was based on misconception of legal provision, the learned High Court did not go into the other objections raised in respect of the transaction in question and left it to the authorities to take such action as were deemed fit in accordance with law.

2. The case was accordingly taken up in presence of the counsel for the respondents /declarant and Head of FLC Inspection Team and the relevant land revenue record was examined in their presence in respect of the points raised in the Inspection Team's report. The objection relating to sanction of the mutation after the crucial date is overruled as the law on the subject does not require date of sanction of mutation as proof of date of the transaction if such date can be established by other independent evidence. Examination of the Register of Mutations of the village clearly shows that the Mutation No.253 was entered on 27‑11‑1971. This is also supported, by entry No.101 id the Roznamcha Waqiati of village Rashidabad which was entered on 27th November, 1971 and according to which a statement was made by the general‑attorney of the respondent on that date reporting Tamleeq alongwith transfer of possession of 250 Acres of land comprised in Khasra numbers given in the statement in detail in favour of Noor Muhammad Chinoy and praying the land revenue authorities to enter the transaction in the Register of Mutations. These entries clearly shows that the transaction was made on 27‑11‑1971 and there is no dubiety about the date of transaction nor is there evidence of any tampering with the date in these two documents. Possession of land had also been transferred before the transaction was reported according to the donor's statement and there is no reason to doubt the statement in this respect. Inspection Team's objection that according to Khasra Girdawari possession was not transferred until Rabi 1972 itself is an admission that the possession had in fact been transferred albeit it could not have been reflected in the Khasra Girdawari before Rabi, 1972.

3. In the circumstances, there is no force whatever in the objection raised in the Inspection Team's report in respect of Mutation No.253 which is found to be valid for purposes of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. Notices issued to the parries under paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 are, therefore, hereby vacated. A . A .????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Notices vacated.