1982 PLP 25 (CLC)

GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑The petitioner challenge the order dated 23rd October, 1976, by which a member of the Federal Land Commission invalidated a mutation for a share an area measuring 290 kanals, 2 marlas (1122/7522 share to them equally). It was attested in their favour on 22nd January, 1972.

2. The facts of this case are that respondent No. 1 transferred on 20th November, 1971, 1122/7522 share 290 acres 2 kanals in equal shares to the petitioners who are his real sisters. A mutation witnessing the same was attested on 22nd January, 1972, Respondent No. 1 who was declarant under Land Reforms Regulations, 1972, declared this transaction in his declaration. The Land Commissioner, Multan, declared it invalid vide his order dated 12th June, 1972. Subsequently, he took up the matter again under his sun motu powers and validated the transaction under his orders dated 14th September, 1972.

3. Respondent No. 1 thereafter received a notice issued from the Federal Land Commission in exercise of his sun motu revisional powers. The proceedings had been taken on the basis of a report of the Inspection Team constituted for the purpose by the Federal Land Commission. The case was, therefore, re‑examined by respondent No. 2 who declared the mutation as invalid vide order dated 23rd October, 1976.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel that as the gift in question had been made to unmarried sisters, who had not received their due share of inheritance, the same could not be inquired into in view of the proviso to para. 7 (b) (ii) of Land Reforms Regulations, 1972.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent. however, challenged that position and submitted that as the original owner had transferred, by way of gift, his entire land during his lifetime, no question of due share of inheritance or deprivation of the due interest of the petitioners arose. Reference is made to the case of Daulat Khatoon v. Member, F. L. C. (P L D 1975 Lah. 59). It was held there that a share of inheritance in `Mohammadan Law' becomes `due' only after succession has opened out". In the case in had admittedly nothing would have been found due to the petitioners on the demise of their father as he had gifted away in his lifetime, his entire property to his son, respondent No. 1.

6. The next contention on behalf of the respondent is that the petitioners have no locus standi to come to this Court for the determination of the matter as those proceedings out of which it arose were between the Land Commission authorities and respondent No. 1, only for the purpose of calcula tion of his holding. Reliance is placed on the case of Raj Bibi (P L D 1975 Lah. 408), where a Division Bench of this Court interpreted and explained para. 7 (3) of the Land Reforms Regulation as under :‑ ". . . For example, in the present case the declarant had 13178 units of land to start with but she claims to have alienated 9067 units out of it. This alienation has been held to be void for the purposes of the Land Reforms Regulation with the result that she has been held liable to surrender 1178 units. But since she considers herself to be bound by the alienations made by her, she regards herself as the owner of only 4111 units. If, therefore, she chooses to surrender 1178 units out of 4111 units of land which according to her, still belongs to her, the pur pose of the Regulation will be served and the alienations made by the declarant will remain intact. There is no reason why in a case like this the alienation should be considered to be void for any purpose other than that of determining the extent of the declarant's holding on the relevant date. However, should the declarant choose to surrender excess units wholly or partly out of the land alienated by her, as it is permissible under the Regulation, the alienation will become void by operation of law to the extent of the surrendered land, and to that extent the affected alienee may claim compensation from the alienor. But again there is no reason why the alienations in respect of the balance of the alienated land should be held to be void for all purposes. It is to be noted that this construction has the advantage of saving the persons not otherwise affected by the Regulation but involved in transactions hit by paragraph 7 (1) from unnecessary litigation without defeating the purpose of the Regulation in any manner . . .

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners had on the other hand relied on Ch. Abdul Aziz v. D. L. C. (P L D 1975 Lah. 417) to contend that the donee had a right to be heard. It will be noted that the learned Judges in the case of Raj Bibi in the relevant portion reproduced above, unequivocally stated the position of law. The condition precedent to the hearing, deducible from the above three cases, is that if the declarant had excess land and had surrendered originally in his declarations the land gifted then it may be said that he himself was also disputing or disowning the gift and so the donee must, be heard. If the declarant did not do so then the donee has no right so be heard as the proceedings under the Land Reforms Regulations are only meant for that Regulation and not to settle the rights of the parties inter se.

8. Thus for the reasons that the petitioners/donees as sister had n right to any due share of inheritance and as they shall not be deemed to have been adversely affected by the impugned order which was mean g to calculate the permissible holding of the declarant, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear, their own costs. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.