1998 PLP 332 (SCMR)

RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.

Haji Khuda Dad Khan, the respondent herein had owned agricultural land in several villages in District Attock which, on calculation, equaled to 15692 Produce Index Units on 1-3-1967. He gave his land against 2291 PIUs as gift to Javed Akhtar in village Khunda on the basis of Mutation No. 1414 having been attested on 8th of April, 1971. Similarly, he gifted another piece of land equivalent to 6276 PIUs to Major Taj Muhammad and Sahibzada Mehmood Bakhsh in village Kamalpur Sher Jang vide Mutation No.25 which was attested on 8th of April, 1971. These two mutations were set aside by Deputy Land Commissioner holding that the same had been attested in violation of provisions of MLR-115. The validity of this order was assailed before the Chief Land Commissioner and Federal Land Commissioner by the respondent No.1 but he did not succeed. The Federal Land Commissioner held that the aforesaid owner had 16057 PIUs. An area against 2057 PIUs was thus resumed from his ownership under MLR-115. The owner surrendered the area which he had owned in village Khunda in compliance with law. On the basis of order dated 6th of February, 1973 passed by Federal Land Commissioner, the Patwari of the area cancelled Mutation No.25 dated 8th of April, 1971. Deputy Land Commissioner recalculated the area of the respondent by holding that he had owned 14472 PIUs on 4th of January, 1977. This being the position, the respondent was directed to surrender the excess land against 8000 PIUs. He complied with the order by surrendering the land of the value of 6472 PIUs in several villages. While exercising his right of choice, he exchanged the land covered under Mutation No.25 with the land of his daughter. He surrendered the said land treating it to be his own property. Deputy Land Commissioner's order dated 12-11-1979 was assailed by respondents Nos. l to 4 by filing appeal which was dismissed by Land Commissioner on 27th of January, 1982. He held that the transactions relating to gift and surrender of land in villages Kamalpur Sher Jang and Mirjal had already attained finality. The respondent filed review petition before the Land Commissioner who while realising that Mutation No.25 which was attested on the basis of gift was violative of Land Reforms Act, 1977 and that being so, the said land had reverted to its original declarant. This case was referred to Chief Land Commissioner who, in turn, sent it back to the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab to settle it in exercise of his Sun Motu revisional powers. On 19th of March, 1983. Additional Chief Land Commissioner held that resumption of the land which was the subject-matter of the aforesaid gift, was illegal and as such it was set aside. It was clarified that Mutation No.25 remained intact and would bind the donor and the donee. The order dated 27th of January, 1982 passed by Land Commissioner was also set aside. In the result, the land which was allotted to the petitioners as tenants under the Land Reforms Act, 1977 stood cancelled. A revision petition of the petitioners was dismissed by Federal Land Commissioner on 7-8-1983. These orders were assailed through writ petition which was dismissed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench on 1-11-1995. This petition has been instituted for leave to appeal to call in question the validity of judgment of Lahore High Court.

2. It is argued by the learned counsel that order of Deputy Land Commissioner dated 28th of September, 1977 whereby he confirmed the exchange of land between the respondent No.1 and his daughter, Mst. Fakhar Sultan became final and as such, it could not be further assailed. Similarly, the order dated 6th of November, 1973 passed by Federal Land Commissioner about Mutation No.25 dated 8-4-1971 had also attained finality. In these circumstances, there was no authority vested in the Federal Land Commission to exercise Suo Motu powers to interfere in the order which had become final between the parties for all intents and purposes.

3. The points raised need deeper examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted to the petitioners. The interim relief already given on 15-4-1996 would continue till the final hearing of this appeal. A.A./M-58/S Leave granted.