1993 PLP 1356 (MLD)

MAMOON KAZI, J.‑‑‑‑The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the O.S.D./Joint Secretary dated 28‑12‑1976 reversing the order passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Tharparkar and allowing the petitioner to retain fourteen thousand produce index units of his land, situated in Taluka Jamesabad. The Deputy Land Commissioner, Tharparkar, while exercising jurisdiction under M.L.R.115, had permitted the petitioners to retain fourteen thousand produce index units of the said land. The said order was passed while taking into consideration paragraph 8(2) of M.L.R.115 which entitled the petitioners to retain additional area of the land bringing total area retained by them to fourteen thousand produce index units, in case the petitioners owned an agricultural tractor certified to be in good working order by an officer authorised by the' Land Commission in this behalf. The petitioner obtained a certificate from the Assistant Commissioner, Mirpurkhas, certifying that the petitioners were the owners of Tractor No.246, Model 1967, which was originally owned by one Ali Hasan Junejo, a Zamindar, resident of Ratodero which had been subsequently purchased by the mother of the petitioners, Bibi Amina. The tractor was also certified to be in good working order. However, the learned O.S.D/Joint Secretary while exercising powers of suo mote revision under paragraph 29 of MLR 115 set aside the order passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Tharparkar, mainly on the ground that the tractor was not registered in the name of the said Mst. Amina and the registration was compulsory under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance. It was further held that only the person in whose name the tractor is registered can be considered to be the owner thereof. Mr. Muhammad Ismail, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has strenuously contended that the findings arrived at by the learned O.S.D./Joint Secretary are not sustainable under the law, as according to paragraph 8 of MLR 115, what the learned Deputy Land Commissioner was required to determine was, whether the petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest owned an agricultural tractor and whether the same had been certified by an officer authorised by the Land Commissioner to be in good working order. Admittedly, the certificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner indicated that the petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest was owner of the tractor and that the same was in a working order. Our attention has been invited by the learned counsel to a number of cases including the case of Nawab Mir Allah Dad Khan v. Officer on Special Duty/FLC, Joint Secretary Federal Land Reform Secretariat, Islamabad 1989 MLD 3583 wherein a Division Bench of this Court while construing the provisions of paragraph 8(2) of MLR 115 in relation to owning of a tractor held that ownership cannot be denied merely on the ground that it was not registered in the name of the declarant. Factually the tractor had been purchased by the declarant before the target date and it was in working condition duly certified by the officer concerned. Some of the other cases relied upon by the learned counsel are reported as Mst. Fatima v. Addl. Chief Land Commissioner, Sindh 1981 CLC 942 and Ghulam Mustafa v. Officer on Special Duty 1984 CLC 824 which, no doubt, lend full support to the contention raised by the learned counsel. The relevant provisions of MLR 115, which have been earlier reproduced in this judgment, clearly entitled the land‑holder to the concession of fourteen thousand produce index units if on 20th December, 1971, he owned an agricultural tractor and the same was certified to be in good working order by an officer authorised by the Land Commission in this behalf. The second condition, in the alternative, entitling him to such concession was that, if on the target date there was installed on his land a tube‑well of not less than ten horse power, but we are not concerned with the same in the present case. The above provisions clearly indicate that the intention was to make the holder of the land entitled to the aforesaid concession merely on production of evidence that he was the owner of an agricultural tractor and secondly, that the said tractor was in working order. No inference adverse to such land‑holder could be drawn merely on the ground that the tractor was not registered in his name. Therefore, what was required to be established was merely the fact that the petitioners were the owners of an agricultural tractor. The question whether tractor was registered in their names was extraneous to the requirement of paragraph 8 of MLR

115. Mr. Mehmood Iqbal, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that there was no sufficient evidence before the learned Deputy Land Commissioner on the basis of which he could permit the petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest to retain land equivalent of fourteen thousand produce index units. Be that as it may, but as is clearly evident from the order of O.S.D/Joint Secretary, Federal Land Commission, the order passed by the learned Deputy Land Commissioner was not reversed on the ground of insufficiency of evidence in regard to the ownership of the tractor but the same was reversed simply on account of the reason that the tractor was not registered in the name of the petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest. The findings of the O.S.D., as we have pointed out earlier, are not sustainable under the law because the mere fact that the tractor was not registered in the name of the petitioners' predecessor could not have necessarily led to an inference that she was not the owner of the said tractor. The certificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner had clearly indicated that the petitioners' predecessor was the owner of the agricultural tractor and the same was in working order. No doubt, no certificate from the said officer‑was required under paragraph 115 in regard to the ownership of the tractor, nevertheless the issuance of the certificate by the said Officer did point out that the petitioners' predecessor had in fact owned a tractor which, she had purchased from one Ali Hasan Junejo, a Zamindar of Ratodero. Consequently, we are of the view that the learned O.S.D./Joint Secrectary has erroneously reversed the order passed by the learned Deputy Land Commissioner, Tharparkar. In the result, we allow this petition and the order passed by the O.S.D/Joint Secretary, dated 28‑12‑1976 is quashed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./M‑1741/K???????