P L D 1975 Lahore 399 (PLP)

Ajmal Hussain donor made a gift of 1072 kanals and 12 marlas of land in favour of his nephews namely, Muhammad Ghias and Muhammad Shahbaz petitioners, by means of Mutation No. 44 which was entered on 15-2-1971 and attested on 20-2-1971. The aforesaid transaction came up under scrutiny before the Land Reforms Authorities who held the same as void under Para. 7(1) (b) being in favour of non-heirs.

2. Learned counsel argues that though apparently the gift had been made to the nephews but it was intended for the two minor daughters of the donor who were engaged to the donees. Learned counsel submits that .actually the engagement had already taken place. In this way be submits that the transaction really was of a benami character. There being nothing on the record in support of the plea raised, the same was rejected by the Land Reforms authorities. The petitioners have come up in writ petition against the proceedings and the orders of the Land . Reforms authori ties to this Court.

3. Learned counsel has repeated the same submissions and has stated that the transaction, in fact, was intended for the two minor daughters .of the donor and was of a benami character. There is nothing before me in support of this bald plea and I do not find any ground. to take exception to the view taken by the Land Reforms authorities in this respect. It is really not understandable that if the transaction was intended for the minor daughters of the donor what was the bar in putting the property in the names of his two said daughters.

4. The next point argued was regarding the validity and constitu tionality of Land Reforms (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1972) -now replaced by Land Reforms (Punjab Amendment) Act XI of 1973. A Division Bench of this Court (of which I was a member) in W. P. No. 1790 .of 1972 decided on 19-2-1974 have already rejected those pleas and have held -the relevant laws to be quite valid and in order. Since the pleas now raised in that respect are just the same which have already been disposed of, therefore, the same are hereby rejected.

5. Learned counsel argued that wherever in the Land Reforms Regu lation a transaction in favour of various heirs has been saved, the definition of "heir," however, it is quite ambiguous and is not clear. He submits that -it is not evident as to what is the date with reference to which the heirs are to be noticed and for this reason he submits that second Proviso and Explanation I to para. 7(1)(b) is void for uncertainty. The contention has no merit. The tenor of the aforesaid provision leaves no doubt that the heirs referred to are with reference to the date of the transaction. At this .stage, learned counsel submitted that even if that be so, the artificial limita tions of heirs (which excludes various other persons who otherwise were heirs under Muhammadan Law) is not justified and is in conflict with the Personal Law of the Present parties, namely, Muhammadan Law. Para. 3 of the Regulation states that it is to take effect notwithstanding any other law to the contrary and as such the point raised on the basis of there being any C alleged violation of the provisions of Muhammadan Law cannot have any substance.

6. The last point argued was that inter partes the transaction was quite valid and it was only for the purpose of calculating the extent of the estate of Ajmal Hussain that the transaction should be considered to be void. This point he raised for the purpose of submitting that if Ajmal Hussain from his own holding wanted to surrender equivalent area, then this transaction should be saved. On this point the Land Reforms authorities do not appear to have any different view as is evident form Mst. Karam Illahi v. The State (P L D 1974 Rev. (Pb.) 17) and as to what particular area the petitioner want, to surrender is a point which he wilt be well-advised to raise before them rather than this Court.

7. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine. S. A. H. Petition dismissed.