1982 PLP 1945 (CLC)

AJMAL MIAN, J.‑The petitioners in this petition have impugned the order dated 29th November, 1976 passed by the respondent under para. 29 of the M. L. R. 115 while exercising suo motu revisional power. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that late Nawab Mubarak Be‑urn widow of Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan was the owner of the Survey Nos. mentioned in para. .1 of the petition. Petitioners. 1 to 5 are the children of aforesaid Nawab Mubarak Begum. It seems that late Mubarak Begum orally gifted away agricultural land, measuring 527.30 Acres out of her total holding to the petitioners in equal share in August, 1969. On the basis of the above gifts mutation . in favour of the donees was effected on 4th October, 1969 in the revenue record. It further seems that the petitioner No. 1 after the receipt of the above gift transferred the land in question in favour of his children in the year 1973. It also seems that upon promulgation of M. L. R. I15 (hereinafter referred to as the M. L. R.) late Nawab Mubarak Begum filed the requisite declaration which was accepted by the Land Commissioner, Sind by order dated 7th August, 1978. However, the respondent issued a notice under para. 29 of the M. L. R. purporting to exercise his suo motu revisional power and initiated the proceedings and ill consequence thereof declared the above gifts given by late Mubarak Begum as void by his impugned order' inter alia the ground that there was no acceptance of the gifts by the donees. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition.

2. In support of the present petition it has been urged by Mr. Aftab Akhund, learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of para 7(b)I explanation (i) of the M. L, R. bona fides of the above gifts could no have been enquired into as the gifts were in favour of the legal heirs In support of the above contention reliance has been placed on the judgments given in C. P. 293/1976 and 294/1976 dated 3rd February, 1981 and 1982 C L C 1947. It may be observed that .the former judgment was given by a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Ajmal Mian, J.) was a party, whereas the judgment in the latter two petitions was given by this Division Bench yesterday. We do not see any reason not to follow the above judgments, and therefore, we declare the impugned order as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the respondents are restrained from acting upon the same. However, we may clarify that this order does not cover the alleged gift made by petitioner No.1 i,e. Khan Muhammad Ahmed Khan in favour of his children in the year 1973 because the alleged gifts relate to the period subsequent to the target date.

3. With the above observation the petition stands allowed with no order as to costs. K.M.A. Petition accepted.