Find a Lawyer

2. Muhammad Mumtaz Ahmad Khan had filed a declaration under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 on 1-1-1967. The aforesaid alienation was accepted by the Land Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan on 19-10-1972. A Member of the Federal Land Commission, in exercise of suo Motu revisional jurisdiction under para. 29 the Martial Law Regulation No. 115, vide para. 7 of the order dated 3-11-1976, held the aforesaid alienation void. This was challenged by the declarant as petitioner No. 1 and the donees, petitioners Nos. 2 to 4. When the petition came up for preliminary hearing on 2-2-1977, late Mr. Justice Karam Elahee Choban as then, passed the following order :

"It is argued that the alienor in this was Mumtaz Ahmed Khan. He held dakheel kari rights in the land in dispute tinder the Provincial Government. Those rights were transferred to the alienees after obtaining the sanction of the Collector on 23-2-1971. The result of this transaction was that the alienees became the dakheel kars under the Government. The choice of dakheel kars in these circumstances vested in the Collector/Provincial Government and if the Collector/ Proviacial Government accepted the alienees as dakheel kars the Federal Land Commission could not interfere with the aforesaid orders especially when it had no jurisdiction to thrust dakheel kars on the Provincial Government to whom the land belonged."

The petitioner No. 1, the declarant through C. M. No. 2463/84, applied for permission to withdraw from the writ petition. It was objected to by the learned counsel for the other petitioners that the request was mala fide. However, the petitioner No. 1 was allowed to withdraw the petition and it was dismissed as regards him vide order dated 8-10-1984.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the rest of the petitioners, the d9nees has contended that the donor was only dukhilkar. The land vested in the Provincial Government and to that para. 8 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 did not apply. He placed reliance on Shamir and 83 others v. The Chief Land Commissioner. Lahore and 3 others (P L D 1973 Lah. 264), as upheld in Talib Din and 101 others v. The Chief Land Commissioner and others (P L D 1984 S C 453).

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities has submitted that para. 8 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 115, no doubt does not apply to the land owned or possessed by the Provincial Government but it does apply to any person who owns or possesses land more than the prescribed limit even if the title of the land possessed may vest in the Government. He has secondly contended that by operation of law vide para. 7 read with para. 3 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 115, the transaction in question was void and as rightly held by the Federal Land Commission.

4. The petitioner No. 1 held dakhilkari rights in the State land in question. He applied to the Collector for transfer thereof in favour of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4. Permission was granted. Mutation was accordingly, sanctioned in favour of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4, the alienees. The result was that in place of petitioner No. 1, petitioners Nos. . to 4 came to be dakhilkars accepted by the State as its tenants. There was nothing- wrong as far as that goes. When the Martial Law Regulation No. 115 came into force, it provided that any person owning or possessing land more than the requisite entitlement, shall not have the excess and surrender the same to be resumed by the Land Commission for further disposal. It was also provided that any transfer of interest or right during 1-3-1967 to 19-12-1971 shall be void. This is para. 7(l)(b). The effect of This was that the alienation by the declarant-petitioner No. 1 in favour of petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 stood annulled and so it has been held by the Land Commission but the story does not end here. By operation of para. 13 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 the land was to vest in the Government free from any encumbrances and its further disposal was to be effected vide para. 18 of the said Regulation. In the case in hand the declaration that the alienation by the declarant-petitioner No. 1 in favour of the donees, the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 was void would have the effect of reverting the land to the Provincial Government and in view of the decisions quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents is also not in a position to dispute that. In no manner the land would be available to the Land Commission for disposal under the Land Reforms Regulation. As far as the Provincial Government is concerned, it may be recapitulated that it had accepted the donees, petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 as the new tenants in place of the old one the petitioner No. 1 when he was permitted to retire. During the course of proceedings in which the impugned order dated 3-11-1976 has been passed, the Provincial Government had not been impleaded as a party. The land vested in the Provincial Government. It had accepted the new tenants in the form of petitioners Nos. 2 to 4. If it was to be affected in any manner in the choice of its tenants, it is elementary that the Provincial Government had to be made a party to the proceedings. Nor any of the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 vested any authority in the Land Commission to oust the tenants adopted by the Provincial Government or to re-instate the old ones. Consequently, the order impugned in this petition so far as it affects the rights of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 who had been accepted as new tenants by the Provincial Government is concerned, that is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. A word may be said about the petitioner No. 1, the declarant who after challenging the impugned order and admission of the petition, has gone out of the arena and his petition has been dismissed as withdrawn. The effect of his action besides having been stated to be mala fide by the learned counsel for the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4, can have no consequence in these proceedings because as far as he was concerned, he had applied to the Collector for permission to transfer his rights in favour of petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 and after obtaining the said permission had got a mutation sanctioned in favour of petitioners Nos. 2 to 4. He abided by his acts and conduct and when interference was made by the Federal Land Commission in exercise of suo mote revisional jurisdiction, he came to this Court to challenge its order dated 3-11-1976. Later on, he seems to have changed his mind for %. hat reason one need not fathom but this much is quite clear that be having himself given up his rights in favour of petitioners No. 2 to 4 and the rights having been vested in the latter by accord of the approval by the Collector and Mutation No. 4 sanctioned in their favour by the Assistant Collector, the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 hav obviously a right to maintain the petition notwithstanding the exit of their predecessor, the petitioner No. 1.