1985 PLP 1099 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑ The Federal Land Commission seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated the 19th January, 1977 whereby a decision of the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, dated 6‑3‑1976 was quashed without remanding the matter to the same authority. A mutation No.37 of village Burjdara, Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala was attested on 4‑3‑1969. According to this mutation Ghulam Abbas a, declarant, gifted 20 squares of his proprietary holdings to Mst. Ghulam Sakina .his wife, and to Mst. Ghulam Safia his daughter and Liaquat Husain his son. Mst. Ghulam Sakina expressly accepted the gift on behalf of her son and daughter. This alienation by gift was declared to be valid by the Land Commission on 6‑6‑1972. After about two and a half years one Riaz Ahmad moved the Chairman, Federal Land Commissioner complaining about this alienation and the manner in which the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No.115 had been effectively frustrated thereby. The Chairman, Federal Land Commission, after an inquiry, found that Ghulam Safia a donee was not a minor and the acceptance of the gift on her behalf by her mother was not a legal acceptance of the gift and to the extent of her share the gift was held to be invalid and a direction was given to the Deputy Land Commissioner to re‑determine the holdings of the declarant. To this extent, the order of the Land Commissioner dated 6‑6‑1972 was revised. In holding that Ghulam Safla was a minor, the Chairman, Federal Land Commission was mainly influenced by the enfry in the passport issued to her which showed her birth in the year 1947. The evidence of the lady doctor was considered to be unnecessary in view of the evidence from the Passport Office though her certificate had been placed on record showing her to be a minor at the relevant time. The lady doctor had been summoned and she had appeared but could not be examined before the Chairman. The decision of the Chairman was challenged in a constitutional petition. The learned Judge in the High Court came to the conclusion that the question of minority of Ghulam Safia was by itself not an issue decisive of the question of validity of the gift. It was actually relevant for ascertaining the acceptance or non‑acceptance of the gift. From the material on the record, it was found that the Chairman not only took an extraneous consideration and made it the basis of his decision but that there was no material whatsoever or anything in the conduct of the parties that could indicate that the gift had not been accepted by Ghulam Safia. In the circumstances, the decision of the Chairman, Federal Land Commission was quashed and the proceedings were not remanded to him for a decision afresh. The learned counsel representing the Federal Land Commission Mr. A.H. Najfi has contended before us that in fact the conclusion drawn by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission was supportable from the evidence on record that the proper course for the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction was to have remanded the proceedings in order to take a decision afresh with regard to the validity of the gift. No substitution of the decision should have taken place at all. He has relied on Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C

139. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also examined the record. On the legal plane, the view taken with regard to the validity of the gift by the High Court is unexceptionable. We also notice that the learned Chairman, Federal Land Commission has made the question of minority of the donee to be decisive of the question of acceptance. It could not be. The conduct of the parties, their relationship and the attending circumstances all indicate implied acceptance and in recording the conclusion which the Chairman, Federal Land Commission did record, not only he adopted an extraneous test but also omitted to take into account the other circumstances having a bearing on the case. Considering the fact that the inquiries had been conducted at two levels; one at the behest of the Commission by an Inquiry Officer and the other by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission himself, we consider that the High \Court justifiably excluded a further inquiry into the matter. The petition raises no such legal question as may require further examination in this Court and leave to appeal is refused. M.I.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.