1984 PLP 666 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑Leave to appeal was granted in this case arising out of proceedings under the law relating to Land Reforms, for examination whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the decision of the authorities concerned on a question which, as pleaded from the appellants' side, was of fact. The declarant (respondents' side) in this case had taken up the position that at the time of his marriage in 1951, he had through a regularly executed kabinnama, given the land in question to his wife; but for various reasons the mutation could not be attested at proper time. On the other hand in the final order passed against the declarant, which was impugned before the High Court, effect was not given to the said transaction of 1951 because of the absence of mutation. The High Court on proper scrutiny of the relevant orders and material came to the conclusion that the genuineness of the kabinnama as executed in 1951 and the entry in question stood established. That being so, the question of formalities regarding transfer would not in any case prejudice/affect the finalization of the transac tion in 1951. Accordingly the respondents were allowed the benefit thereof. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the High Court has in this case interfered with the findings of fact by a functionary under the Land Reforms Law, which in exercise of writ jurisdiction, could not be done. We do not agree with the learned counsel. The law relating to Land Reforms is for nearly a quarter of a century, being applied by the superior Courts to the facts and circumstances of the individual cases coming before them. It was held by this Court regarding the laws relating to the Evacuee Property, Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons Compensation and Settlement, in Mian Rafi‑ud‑din and others v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and others (PLD 1971 SC 252), that therein, ordinary considerations applicable to judicial proceedings may not be followed, stricto senso‑only their spirit may c be kept in view. The same would apply to the laws of Land Reforms. In the context of the various developments of that branch of law it can safely be said that it acquired the present form, only through the precedent law; as applied by the superior Courts to the facts and circumstances of individual cases. An important element was interjected in the Regulation of 1972 by the confer ment of ultimate and final revisional jurisdiction on a Commission with a Chairman who not only held a ministerial portfolio in the Central Government but also belonged to, and held an important office of, a political party. The norms of public policy in such unusual circumstances could not be equated with the otherwise normal situations. The so‑called judicial exercise in the performance of functions in final revisional jurisdiction by the Federal Land Commission, might in given cases, not have remained uninfluenced by other considerations. Therefore, the High Court as held in Abdul Jabbar and others v. Abdul Waheed Khan and others (PLD 1974SC331) an Urban Settlement case, would be justified in making departure from the normal practice and procedure in such like cases regarding treatment of facts, for declaring whether or not a particular order was or was not without lawful authority. At pages 339/340 of the report after observing that "the Court may, in appropriate circumstances, remit the case to the Tribunal concerned for deciding the question left undecided, or it may itself proceed to determine the matter if the relevant material is already present on the record and such determination does not entail an enquiry into disputed questions of facts," this Court critically examined the evidence available on record, reached certain conclusions and gave effect to them. There are many cases where, in Land Reforms matters the superior Courts deter mined the facts on basis of available records for the decision of jurisdictional and legal questions. The facts of the present case can` serve as a very apt illustration' of the foregoing observations. The genuineness of the transaction of 1951, not having been questioned in the proceedings before the Special Tribunals' and1 admitted before us, the relief was refused to the respondents on the basis of g a technicality that the transaction was not followed by a mutation or entries in revenue records. It is well known that mutations sometimes are delayed without any fault of the parties concerned. The completeness or otherwise of a transaction of alienation of property is not always necessarily dependent upon the formalities when the former is admitted to have taken place. And in so far as the grant of land in lieu of dower by a Muslim husband it concerned no law has been cited before us for coming to a conclusion that it could not be completed without a mutation or other documentary formalities. The learned Judges in the High Court did not make any departure from accepted principle of treatment of admitted facts when restoring the judgment of the Provincial Land Commission which bad been set aside by the Federal Land Commission, in exercise of suo mote revisional jurisdiction. Thus, the approach of the High Court in so far as the factual aspect of the case is concerned, was unexceptionable. In the light of the foregoing discussion we do not find any justification for interference with the judgment of the High Court. This appeal accord ingly is dismissed, with costs. M.Z.M. Appeal dismissed.