Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Writ Petition No. 1741 of 1977, heard on 10th April, 1983.
‑‑ Art. 199 read with Land Refor. Regulation. 1972 (M. L. R. 115), para. 7‑Coosent‑ Issuance of writ by Declaration under M. L. R. 115 mentioning two mutations purporting to be gifts but claimed to be in fact sales‑Member, Federal Land Commission, after two years under suo moru revisional jurisdiction not accepting transactions as sales‑Counsel of both sides agreeing to setting aside order of Member Federal Land Commission and remand of case for fresh decision‑Peti tions allowed in circumstances.
Writ Petition No. 589/75 and P L D 1975 Lab. 1527 ref.
Rana Muhammad Sarwar Khan for Petitioner
Talib H. Rizvi for Respondent No. 1.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Date of hearing :10th April, 1983.
This order will dispose of W. P. Nos. 1741/77, 1740177, 1751/77 and 2658/82.
2. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan filed a declaration under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 in which two mutations Nos. 61 dated 30th August, 1967 and 63 dated 18th March, 1968 were mentioned purporting to gifts but were claimed to be, in fact, those of sale. In due course on remand the Land Commissioner, Lahore upheld the two mutations as of sale and bona fide vide order dated 24th June, 1974, On appeal, the learn ed Chief Land Commissioner upheld the order on 10th September, 1974. After two years, the Member, Federal Land Commission, in exercise of his suo motu revisional jurisdiction, observed that "this Tribunal cannot accept the two transactions as sales, firstly because on the basis of mere agreement and katcha receipts, a sale cannot be established. Secondly, as a gift, it must be treated as a gift for the purposes of M. L. R. 115, even though for the purposes of pre‑emption it may be lawful to treat it a: a sale". This is vide order dated 25th November, 1976. This is chal lenged by the declarant and the Alienees from him through the above‑titled Constitutional Petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order impugned is illegal for the reason that the Land Commissioner and the Chief Land Commissioner had after perusal of the evidence on record come to a finding that the transactions were sales and the learned Member Federal Land Commission . was in error to brush aside all that for the reason especially that "once the transaction was reported by the parties and mutated as a gift it must be treated as a gift for the purposes of M: L. 8. 115". It is contended with reference to the provisions of para. 7 of the aforesaid Regulation and decisions ‑in W. P. No. 589/75 and P L D 1975 Lab. 1527 that the nature of the transactions had to be gone into.
4. Before arguments were concluded, the learned counsel for to petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Federal Land Commission, however, submitted that the order ‑ impugned may be se aside and the matter remanded to the learned Member, Federal Land Commission for fresh decision.
5. In view of the above, these petitions are allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the learned Federal Land Commission is directed to re‑hear the matter, if it decides to exercise sun motu jurisdiction, after notice to all the parties concerned. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Petitions allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer