1975 PLP 352 (SCMR)

The delay, it seems, has been due to the negligence of the dealing officials in the office of the Land Commission. In the application for the' condonation of the delay, this has been admitted and it has been mentioned that action has been initiated against the defaulting officials. ' In the ' circumstances this short delay of four days can be excused, The delay is accordingly, condoned. The writ petition in the High Court was filed for calling Ira question an order of the Chief Land Commissioner passed on the 30th September, 1969, in the exercise of his suo motu revisional jurisdiction, whereby he had set aside an order of the Land Commissioner passed on the 9th November, 1960, and held that the gift purported to be made by the respondent, Makhdoom Syed Nazar Hussain Shah, in 1951 in favour of his wife, Mst. Parveen Akhtar, and his minor son, Mukhtar Hussain, in equal shares, which was sought to be given effect to by mutation No. 36 entered on 2‑1‑1952, with regard to 2,060 kanals and 8 marals of land situated in village Ratla, Tehsil Khanewal, District Multan, was not protected under M. L. R. 64 of 1959. The above‑mentioned mutation was, it appears, at first rejected by the Assistant Collector on 21‑6‑1953, but it was sanctioned in review on 24‑7‑1960. The case of the donor, who is a big landlord, was taken up under Martial Law Regulation No. 61 of 1959 (Land Reforms Regulations) by the Deputy Land Commissioner who, on the 14th May, 1955, referred the matter to the Land Commissioner. The latter, by his order of 5‑6‑1959 held that the gift of 62 acres, 4 karrals and 10 marlas had been completed by transfer of the land, but the gift of the rest of the area had not been so completed. Nevertheless, he observed in his order that the donor could possibly still apply for the review of the order, whereby, the mutation had been rejected by the Assistant Collector. The donor and donees, it appears, had already applied to the Collector for the Review of the order of 21‑6‑

53. This permission was granted on 115‑7‑60 and the Assistant Collector was asked to review his previous order. This was done and, the mutation was sanctioned, on 24‑7‑

60. The matter then went to the Deputy Land Commissioner for the velidation of the gift. The latter recommended the matter to the Chief Land Commissioner suggesting that the Chief Land Commissioner could himself review the order to avoid technicalities or, in the alternative, could give permission to the Land Commissioner to review his previous order. The Chief Land Commissioner did not feel inclined to take up the matter in his suo motu revisional jurisdiction but gave permission to the Land Commissioner to proceed in review. The Land Commissioner then by his order of 2‑11‑1960, validated the gift in toto. Subsequently, in 1965, however, the Chief Land Commissioner again took up the matter in his suo motu revisional jurisdiction and by his order of the 30th September, 1969, held the gift in dispute to be invalid, with the result that the land in dispute had to be added to the holding, of the donor. The Chief Land Commissioner had given a number of reasons for inter fering in suo motu revision with the order of the Land Commissioner but the High Court felt that :‑ (1) He had misread the record in assuming that the total area shown in the details given in the mutation entry was less, because, the Chief Land Commissioner had not taken the trouble to see the original mutation records. (2) The doubt cast by the Chief Land Commissioner on the declaration of gift made by the donor was due to non‑consideration of material evidence, namely, the answers to the interrogatories which contained the signatures and endorsements of all local officials. (3) The chief land Commissioner had also tailed to notice that the plea that the donor and the donees had no knowledge of the rejection of the mutation by the Assistant Collector was established on the findings of the Collector, the land Commissioner and also the reports of the local field staff. The learned Judge in the High Court also held that the order of the Chief Land Commissioner suffered from a patent error of law in so far as he had come to the conclusion that the delivery of po3session of a part of the gifted property was sufficient to validate the gift only with regard to that part and not to the rest. There was, however, abundant authority for the proposition that delivery of possession of part of the gifted property is sufficient to complete the gift of the whole of the property. The High Court was also of the view that the Chief Land Commissioner had not dealt with the matter of the genuineness of the gift but proceeded more on the sanction or rejection of mutation, The view of the Chief Land Commission, that without settling the question of mutation, the authorities were not justified in or authorised to validate the gift was without legal foundation. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has also contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Chief Land Commissioner in the writ jurisdiction. The High Court had, it is contended, exceeded its own jurisdiction by treating the matter as if it was an appeal before it. No grounds for the issuance of certiorari existed. A mere erroneous decision, it is said, could not be struck down in the certiorari jurisdiction. We are unable to agree that the High Court had misconceived the scope of its own jurisdiction under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962. Under the provisions of that Constitution, the High Court could interfere with the orders of the Chief Land Commissioner, if they were based on misreading of evidence or suffered from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. As indicated earlier, the High Court was fully conscious of the limits of its own jurisdiction and had, therefore, been careful enough to indicate specifically the grounds for its interference. No just exception can be taken to the order of the High Court. It has in detail brought out the misreading of the evidence, the non‑consideration of the material evidence, the erroneous assumption of facts made by the Chief Land Commissioner and the patent error of law committed by him. In the circumstances, we are unable to agree that this is a fit case for the grant of special leave to appeal. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed on merits. Petition dismissed.