RANJHA and others vs Mst. ZAHRAI BEGUM and others
The matter concerns a challenge to the validity of a gift mutation of land, originally attested in 1974, which was subsequently scrutinized under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115). The Additional Chief Land Commissioner upheld the gift, a decision challenged by the petitioners in the Lahore High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, citing the petitioners' lack of locus standi and the impact of the Supreme Court's judgment in Qazalbash Waqf v. Chief Land Commissioner, which rendered the relevant land reform provisions ineffective. The core legal questions were whether the High Court correctly applied the changed legal position regarding land reforms and whether the petitioners possessed the requisite locus standi to challenge the administrative order. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, holding that courts must apply the law as it stands at the time of decision, even if it changes during pendency. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the petitioners, who were never allotted the land, lacked the status of an aggrieved party under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to maintain the challenge.
- Can a court take notice of a change in law that occurs during the pendency of proceedings?
- Does a party who has not been allotted land under land reform regulations have the locus standi to challenge a mutation of that land?
- Is a petitioner who has no direct interest in the subject matter an aggrieved party under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115)
- Land Reforms Act, 1977
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.--Abdul Qayyum was predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 3 and in his life-time gifted land measuring 846 Kanals, 1 Marla to these respondents, vide Mutation No,750 attested on 22-4-1974. This mutation came under scrutiny in the proceedings initiated for the purpose of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115) which culminated in the order of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab-respondent No,4, herein. By his order, he held in favour of the validity of the mutation/ transaction of gift. This order of respondent No,4 dated 30-8-1979 was questioned by the petitioners in the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, by filing Writ Petition No,7346 of 1979. This petition has been dismissed by the High Court vide judgment dated 2-2-2000 on theground of absence of locus standi and seemingly also on the ground that the judgment of this Court in the case of Qazalbash Waqf and others v. Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and others PLD 1990 SC 99 has rendered the etire controversy as irrelevant.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the denial of interim relief by this Court, the petitioneq are reported to have engaged another counsel and that time be allowed so that this matter is sorted out. We declined request for adjournment and directed the learned counsel to proceed, since in any case, he also remains a counsel in the case.
3. In compliance with the direction of the Court, learned counsel submitted that the High Court has taken an incorrect view while holding that the judgment of this Court in Qazalbash Waqf s case has rendered the controversy as irrelevant. According to him, this petition has to be decided in accordance with law as applicable on the date of mutation viz. 22-4-1974.
4. We are unable to agree inasmuch as it is well-settled that if during pendency of proceedings, the law is changed the higher forum can take notice of the changed legal position and decide the rights of the parties. In this case, the relevant provision of the M.L.R. 115/Land Reforms Act, 1977 were declared against the injunctions of Quran and Sunnah in the year 1990 when the writ petition in this case was pending in the Lahore High Court. The High Court, therefore, was entitled to notice the fresh legal position and to give effect to the same.
5: Be that as it may, the High Court has also dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners have no locus standi. The petition, s claim to be tenants in the land subject-matter of gift. It is also an admitted position that at no stage under the provisions of Martial Law Regulation or the Land Reforms Act, 1977 the land or any part of its was ever surrendered or allotted to the petitioners. We tend to agree with the High Court that in view of these facts the petitioners do not seem be an aggrieved party within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution so as to maintain the petition against the order of Additional Chief Land Commissioner.
6. Finding no force in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed and leave is refused.