P L D 1983 Karachi 346 (PLP)

NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.-This petition challenges the order dated 23-11-1976 passed by the Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land Commission in suo motu Revision under para. 29 of M. L. R.

115. This petition was admitted to regular hearing by order 'dated 28-7-1977. At the time of admission, Mr. Imam Ali Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that he was only challenging that part of the impugned order of the Federal Land Commission which relates to the rejection of the petitioner's claim to retain an additional area enquivalent to 2,000 P. I. Us. on account of owning a tractor. We have heard Mr. Imam Ali Kazi on behalf of the petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

2. The Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad by his order dated 19-9-1972 decided that the petitioner was entitled to retain an additional area of 2000 P.

1. Us. on account-of tractor as was certified by the Assistant Commissioner, Tando Muhammad Khan. The Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land Commission,, however, by his order dated 23-11.1976 inter allia set aside the order of the Deputy Land Commissioner as regards the tractor concession. The relevant portion of his order is as follows : "Regarding the tractor concession, the learned counsel argued that the tractor was purchased by the declarant from Mahfooz Ltd. and was owned by them. He further submitted that the competent authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner duly certified that the declarant was the owner of the tractor. All this, the learned counsel argued sufficiently proved the ownership of the tractor. The tractor was not registered in the name of the declarant nor the learned counsel could produce any satisfactory evidence to prove the ownership of the tractor. I therefore hold that the Deputy Land Commissioner was not justified in allowing the * tractor concession as the ownership of the tractor was not established from the material available on the record."

3. The reason for not accepting the claim of the petitioner relating to the tractor by the Commission was, therefore, that the tractor was not registered in the name of the petitioner and that the petitioner could not produce any satisfactory evidence about the ownership of the tractor. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that just because tractor was not registered in the name of the petitioner, he could not be deprived of the benefits under para. 8(2) of M. L. R.

115. Learned counsel relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments : (i) Fateh Khan v. Member, Federal Land Commission P L D 1977 Lah. 1100. - (ii) Member, Federal Land Commission v. Muhammad Ashraf Khan 1978 S C M R 153. (Iii) Shaft Muhammad v. Member, Federal Land Commission 1979 CLC

91. The three reported judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner support the contention that a declarant cannot be deprived of the benefits under para. 8(2) of M. L. R. 115 solely on the ground that the tractor is not registered in his name. In the instant case there is the certificate of Assistant Commissioner, Tando Muhammad Khan certifying that the petitioner was the owner of the tractor. There is no observation in the order of the Federal Land Commission that this certificate of the Assistant Commissioner is a bogus certificate or that it was obtained by improper means. In vie of the certificate of the Assistant Commissioner about the ownership o the tractor which has not been discarded, and the established law that declarant cannot be deprived of the benefits under para. 8(2) of M. L. R. 11 only for the reason that the tractor is not registered in his name, we are of the view that the order of the Federal Land Commission to the extent it relates to tractor concession is liable to be set aside. .

4. This Constitutional Petition is allowed to the extent that the order of the Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land Commission dated 23-11-197 is set aside in regard to the tractor concession only. The result is that th part of order of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad dated 19-9-197 to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to retain additional area of 20 P. I. Us. on account of tractor ,is revived. There will be no order as to costs. M. Y. H. Order accordingly.