Find a Lawyer

[Land Reforms Regulation (M. L. R. 115 of 1972)-

- S. 7-Alienation of land-Transfer, not a new transfer by itself, but an implementation of an agreement of exchange entered into several years previously - Land already transferred by virtue of previous agreement-Land Commission neither considering overall nature of -two transfers nor giving any finding on matter - Two transfers if interlinked case may require different treatment-Case remanded for Fresh decision after attending to entire context.

Gul Muhammad Khan for Petitioner.

.A. S. Najam, A. A.-G.-II assisted by Salahud Din for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 25th April 1974.

KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.

-This judgment will dispose of two writ -petitions being Writ Petition No. 315 of 1974 (Noor Muhammad Khan v. -Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore etc.) and Writ Petition No. 541 of 1974 (Mst. Ghulam Zohra Begum v. Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore etc.).

2. On Ist of October, 1964 Noor Muhammad Khan (hereinafter .called as husband) made a report bearing No. 32 in the daily diary of Patwari of village Amirpur Sarbana, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh indicating ,that his wife Mst. Ghulam Zohra had given her entire area in that village to the husband to the extent of 1/4th and to their son Muhammad Iqbal to the extent of 3/4th. It was further indicated that this was really a transaction of exchange and that the husband will similarly give four squares of land which he owned in village Binda Sarbana, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang, to the wife. On the basis of the aforesaid report, Mutation No. 2 was entered on 1-10-1964 and after recording the statement of the wife on interrogatories the mutation was sanctioned on 11-11-1965.

3. The husband however, after a long time on 1-1-1972 made a report that he had made an (Oral Tamleek) of an area of 803 kanals 10 marlas in village Binda Sarbana, Tehsil Shorkot District Jhang in favour of his wife in the form of specific performance of the earlier transaction of exchange here inbefore mentioned whereupon a mutation bearing No. 298 was attested on 24th of January 1972. Noor Muhammad Khan (husband) being declarant case of the scrutiny of his land was taken up by the learned Additional Land Com missioner who by the learned Additional Land Commissioner who by means of This order dated 16-6-72 declared Mutation No. 298 as void because according to him it was hit by paragraph 7(1)(a) of Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972 which declared void any alienation made on or after 20-12-1971. This order ,was maintained in appeal by the learned Additional Chief Land Commissioner on 21-10-1973. Having failed at all the stages before the Land Reforms Authorities, the husband and the wife both have filed the writ petitions mentioned above in this Court challenging the orders aforesaid.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the parties that the learned Chief Land Commissioner has not adverted to the fact that Mutation No. 298 was not a new transfer by itself but was simply an implementation of an agreement of exchange which had been entered into in the year 1964 and in connection with which the wife had already transferred her land to the husband and her son by Mutation No. 2 attested on 11-11-1965 read wit Report No. 32 mentioned earlier. Learned counsel submits that had the case been examined from an overall point of view, keeping Mutation No. 2 and report No. 32 in the form from their Mutation No. 298 which was only one limb of the whole transaction could not have been separated from the context. The failure of, the learned Chief Land Commissioner to read the whole record renders the order as without lawful authority. We agree and hold accordingly. We have noticed that the learned Additional Chief Land Commissioner has neither considered the overall nature of the two mutations and nor has he given any finding of his own in that respect. The point for determination is as to whether transfer by Mutation No. 298 was a new transfer or was a recognition of an earlier and antecedent entitlement of the husband created- by Mutation No. 2 and' Report No. 32. If Mutation No. 298 and Mutation No. 2 are inter-connected, then merely striking down Mutation No. 298 was no solution of the matter because in that context Mutation No. 2 would also undergo serious repurcussions which may result in the land then given to the then alienees (i.e. husband and son) as reverting to the wife and not being liable to be counted in the holding of the husband. By counting the land involved in Mutation No. 2 in the holding of the husband it appears that mutation or deal is being accepted. 1f that is so, then Mutation No. 298 also deserves a different treatment from that which has been given it now.

5. In the circumstances we think that the best course will be to remand the case to the learned Additional Chief Land Commissioner for fresh decision in accordance with law after attending to the entire context and after hearing the parties concerned and giving them an opportunity to defend themselves. The impugned order of the learned Additional Chief Land Commissioner is hereby set aside and case remanded as indicated above. There shall be no, order as to costs.

S. A. H. Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.