Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Before Nasir Aslam Zahid and Ally Madad Shah, JJ
IMDAD ALI-Petitioner
versus
FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, RAWALPINDI AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents
Constitutional Petition No. D-211 of 1979, decided on 9th September, 1986.
------ Paras. 7 (1) (b) & 29, third proviso [as amended by Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act (LXXIV of 1976)]-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 199-Federal Land Commission-Revisional powers - Period for suo mote . exercise of such powers by Land Commission under para. 29 of the Regulation restricted to a specified date-Statutory bar created to reopening of any decided case by Land Reform Authority after expiry of such specified date-- Order having been passed in revision after specified date was declared to be without lawful authority by High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction.
Kazi Qadir Bux for Petitioner. Syed Inayat Ali for Respondent No. 1. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (absent). Date of hearing: 9th September, 1986.
NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.-The petitioner, a declarant under Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M. L. R. 115) has filed this constitutional petition challenging the order dated 14-12-1978 passed by the Senior Member, Federal Land Commission. As a declarant, the petitioner had filed a declaration required to be filed under the provisions of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 and in the said declaration he had shown an alienation by way of sale made during the specified dates. The matter came up before the Land Commissioner, who by order dated I0-6-1972 confirmed the said alienation. A notice dated 28-9-1978 was received by the petitioner from tile Senior Member, Federal Land Commission for re opening the case under suo motu revisional powers of the Senior Member, Federal Land Commission. Pursuant to the notice, the petitioner appeared and the impugned order dated 14-12-1978 was passed by the Senior Member, Federal Land Commission setting aside the order of Land Commissioner, dated 10-6-1972. Being aggrieved the present constitutional petition has been filed by the petitioner. We have heard Mr. Kazi Qadir Bux, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Inayat Ali, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, Federal Land Commission. None has appeared on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
2. The order passed by the Land Commissioner under para graph 7(1)(b) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 could be reopened under the suo motu powers available to the Federal Land Commission under paragraph 29 of the said Regulation. However, the third proviso to paragraph 29 lays down that record of any case 'or proceedings, in which an authority had passed an order shall not be called for under this para graph by the Federal Government or the person authorized by it of its or his ,q own motion after 30th of November, 1976. This date of 30th November, 1976, is the last date, by which action for reopening the case could be taken under paragraph 29 of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 and this was inserted in the Regulation by the Land Reforms (Second Amendment) of 1976. Prior to this amendment, there were other dates and such final dates were extended from time to time but according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, 30th day of November, 1976, is the last date for re-opening the cases under paragraph 29 and thereafter this date has not been extended. Mr. S. Inayat Ali. learned counsel for the Federal Land Commission, states that he has made search and he has also found that 30th day of November, 1976, was the last date, by which a case could be re-opened under paragraph 29 and this date has not been extended.
It is an admitted position that no case was pending before the Federal Land Commission prior to 30th November, 1976, in so far as the petitioner was concerned and the first notice that was received by the petitioner for re-opening the case is dated 28-9-1978. Under the provi sions of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 the case could not be re-opened after 3Q-11-1976 and in the Land Reforms Act of 1977 also no provision could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the Federal Land Commission, under which an order passed by a Land Reforms Authority under Paragraph 7(1)(b) of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 could be re-opened after 30-11-1976. The petitioner has also taken this as a specific ground in Ground No. 2 of the memo of petition. No counter-affidavit has been filed and as observed earlier, even according to the learned counsel for the Federal Land Commission, the date 30-11-1976 has not been extended by law.
3. As a result, the Senior Member, Federal Land Commis sion could not re-open the matter under the revisional suo motu powers and set aside the order dated 10-6-1972 passed by the Land Commissioner in favour of the petitioner. As no power vested in the C Senior Member, Federal Land Commission, to re-open the matter, the impugned order dated 14-12-1978 of the Senior Member of Federal Land Commission is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect. This Constitutional Petition No. D-211 of 1979 is accordingly allowed but with no order as to costs.
H. B. T Petition allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer