Find a Lawyer

‑ Read with Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 79(3), Provisional Constitution Order (P. O. 1 of 1969), Art. 4(1), Constitution of Pakistan (1972), Art. 281 and Punjab Board of Revenue Notification No. 6416‑71/3316‑L.1. III, dated 23‑11‑1971‑Legislation, life of Contention that Ordinance XI of 1972 having not been approved by Assembly within six weeks same no longer remained a valid piece of legislation and could not therefore be invoked for interpreting provisions of notification dated 23‑11‑1971‑Held: Contention without force, overlooks provisions of Art. 4(1) of Provisional Constitution Order, 1969 and Art. 281 of Constitution of Pakistan (1972) validating all laws made during relevant period‑Ordinance XI of 1972 still in force and Civil Judge rightly rejected petitioner's application pleading suits for pre‑empting sale of agricultural land in Jhelum District having been barred by notification.

State v. Zia‑ur‑Rehman P L D 1973 S C 49 ref.

A. R. Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Ali, Advocate‑on Record for Petitioner.

Pervaiz Akhtar Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing : 8th August, 1981.

ASLAM RIAZ

HUSSAIN, J.‑ ‑This order will dispose of C. P. No. 147/76, 166/76 and 195/76. All the ‑ three Petitions have been filed by Muhammad Sarfraz Khan and involve the same question of law.

2. The facts giving rise to these petitions, briefly, are that the petitioner purchased some agricultural land in Village, Wara Thal, Tehsil Pind Dadan Khan, District Jhelum, from Mst. Noor Johan Begum, in 1967. The plaintiffs‑respondents, in each of the three cases, filed a suit to pre‑empt the sale of the land in question. During the pendency of the suit a Notifi cation No. 6416‑71/3316‑L. I. 111, dated 23‑11‑1971, was issued by the Punjab Board of Revenue, in exercise of powers under section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1922, which was published in the Punjab Gazette of 7th January, 1972. It reads as follows :‑

"In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) of section 8 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913, the Board of Revenue, Punjab, is pleased to declare that for a period of three years commencing from the date of issue of this notification, no right of pre‑emption shall exist with respect to :‑

(a) Agricultural land not exceeding fifty acres in a canal irrigated area, or one hundred acres in an area other than canal irrigated area; or

(b) Other immovable property the market value of which does not exceed Rs. 10,000 situated in Mianwali District or Khushab Tehsil of Sargodha District, in favour of a person displaced from the Mianwali District by the construction of Chashma Barrage, and certified to be so affected by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division."

A doubt arose with regard to the meaning of clause (a) of this Notifica tion because this clause was susceptible to an interpretation that the sale of agricultural land throughout the Province of Punjab could no longer be pre‑empted. The Government of the Punjab, therefore, promulgated an Ordinance on 12‑4‑1972, in order to remove this doubt. It was called the Punjab Pre‑emption (Removal of Doubts) Ordinance XI of 1972. Section 2 of this Ordinance reads as under :‑

"Removal of doubts. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913 or any other law, or Notification No: 6416‑71/3316‑LR. 111, dated the 23rd of November, 1971, issued by the Board of Revenue, Punjab and published in the Punjab Gazette of 7th January, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the notification) or any decree, judgment or order of any Court or any proceeding pending before any Court, the notification shall not apply to any sale of agricultural land or other immovable property unless‑

(a) such sale .is in respect of the agricultural land or other immovable property described in the Schedule to this Ordinance and is in favour of a person displaced from Mianwali District by the construction of Chashma Barrage; and

(b) it is certified by the Commissioner of Sargodha Division that such person has been so affected by the construction of the said Barrage.

Schedule

(1) Agricultural land not exceeding fifty acres in a canal irrigated area situated in Mianwali District or Khushab Tehsil of Sargodha District.

(2) Agricultural land not exceeding one hundred acres in an area other than canal irrigated area situated in Mianwali District or Khushab Tehsil of Sargoda District.

(3) Other immovable property, situated in Mianwali District or Khushab Tehsil of Sargodha District, the market value of which does not exceed rupees ten thousand."

The petitioner filed an application in each of the three suits praying for their dismissal on the ground that after coming into force of the above mentioned Notification the suits against him had abated by virtue of the provisions of clause (a) thereof. These applications were, however, dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 22‑6‑1974, on the ground that the inter pretation of clause (a) of the Notification was governed by the provisions of the Punjab Pre‑emption (Removal of Doubts) Ordinance XI of 1972. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed three Civil Revisions before the High Court. These were also dismissed, vide the impugned judgment.

Hence the present three petitions for Leave to Appeal.

3. The

learned counsel argued that Ordinance No. XI of 1972, has been promulgated by the Governor in exercise of his powers under Article 79 of the Constitution, 1962, and certain provisions whereof (including Article 79) remained operative by virtue of Article 3 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1969. He submitted that since Ordinance No. XI of 1972, had not been approved by the Assembly within six weeks as required by sub‑1 Article (3) of Article 79 of the 1962 Constitution, it was no longer a valid piece of legislation after the lapse of six weeks which ended on the 28th( of June, 1972, and could not therefore be invoked for interpreting the provisions of clause (a) of the above‑mentioned Notification dated 23‑11‑1971.

4. This contention has no force; firstly, because it overlooks the provi sions of Article 4(1) of the Provisional Constitutional Order, 1969, which provides that :‑

"An Ordinance promulgated by the President or by the Governor of the Province shall not be subject to the limitation as to its duration prescribed in the said (1962) Constitution."

and secondly, Article 281 of the Interim Constitution of 1972, which came into force on 21st of April, 1972, i.e. a few days after the promulgation of the Ordinance No. XI of 1972), validated all laws made' during the period between 25th March, 1969, and the date of the enforcement of the Interim Constitution (i.e. 15‑4‑1972). The effect of Article 281 of the Interim Constitution was considered in State v. Zia‑ur‑Rehman PLD 1973SC49

in the following words :‑

". . . This clause not only validates all such measures but also nullifies the effect of the judgment of this Court in Asma Jdani's .case by using the words "notwithstanding any judgment of any Court" and further completely ousts the jurisdiction of the Courts to question either the validity of these measures or the competence of the authori ties enacting them. As a result of this clause, it is no longer possible for any Court to declare any legislative measure enacted or promulgated between the 25th day of March, 1969 to the 21st of April, 1972, to be void or invalid, on account of it having been made or enacted by a person or authority having no power to do so."

It may be mentioned that similar protection was given Article 269 of the 1973 Constitution, to all the laws made between 21st of April, 1972 and the date of coming into force of the Constitution, i.e. 12th of April, 1973.

5. In view of what has been observed above, we hold that Ordinance No. XI of 1972, is still in force and the learned Civil Judge had right rejected the petitioner's applications on the ground that this Ordinance was a valid piece of legislation and that the provisions of Notification dated 23‑11‑1971, read with the provisions of the said Ordinance did not bar suits for pre‑empting the sale of the agricultural land in the District of Jhelum.

For the above‑mentioned reasons, we find no force in these petitions which are consequently dismissed.

S. A.. H. Petitions dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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