KHANMUHAMMAD and 6 others vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION through Senior Member, Islamabad and 6 others
This case concerns the validity of review proceedings initiated by tenants regarding land holdings determined under Martial Law Regulation 115 and the Land Reforms Act, 1977. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Land Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to review a 1972 order in the year 2000, particularly in light of the expiration of review powers and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Qazalbash Waqf v. Chief Land Commissioner. The Court held that the review power under Rule 12(3) of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972, had ceased to be effective as of April 30, 1975, rendering the subsequent review proceedings void. Furthermore, the Court observed that no decisive steps for land resumption had been taken prior to the March 23, 1990, cut-off date established in Qazalbash Waqf. Consequently, the Court upheld the Federal Land Commission's decision to set aside the unauthorized review orders. The key principle laid down is that statutory powers of review are time-bound and cannot be exercised after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period, nor can land resumption proceedings be initiated after the cut-off date established by the Supreme Court.
- Does the power of review under Rule 12(3) of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972, survive beyond April 30, 1975?
- Can land resumption proceedings be initiated after the cut-off date of March 23, 1990, established in the Qazalbash Waqf case?
- Is an order passed by a Deputy Land Commissioner without jurisdiction subject to being set aside by the Federal Land Commission?
- Martial Law Regulation 115
- Land Reforms Act, 1977
- Rule 12(3), Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- This judgment shall decide Writ Petition No,9258 of 2001 and Writ Petition No,431 of 2003 as both the writ petitions proceed against the same impugned order passed by a Senior Member, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad.
2. The facts of the case as gleaned from an examination of the writ petitions and the written statements filed by the private respondents are that upon the promulgation of MLR-115, Abdul Qayyum Khan respondent No,5 filed a declaration. Proceedings were conducted by the Deputy Land Commissioner for the determination of the holdings. Vide order, dated 14-11-1972 the holding was determined as equal to 11563 PIUs. Being less than the ceiling of 12000 PIUs, no land was resumed. The matter came up for scrutiny before the Inspection Team which resulted in issuance of a suo motu notice in revision by a learned Senior Member, Federal Land Commission who found the determination to be correct vide order, dated 7-12-1978 and recalled the notice.
3. Upon promulgation of the Land Reforms Act, 1977, the matter was again scrutinized by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Camp at Lahore, and the holding at that time was found to be within the ceiling of 8000 PIUs fixed in the said Act. The matter was decided accordingly on 3-6- 1998. On 27-8-1998 the petitioners in this writ petition claiming themselves to be tenants filed an application for the review of the said original order of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Multan, dated 14-11-1972. The review was sanctioned and the said order, dated 14-11-1972 was reviewed vide order, dated 5-7-2000 of the Deputy Land Commissioner. This order was upheld in appeal by the Land Commissioner, Multan Division, on 31-7-2000 and then by the Chief Land Commissioner vide order, dated 14-3-2001. All these orders were challenged by the (private) respondents before the.
Federal Land Commission who set aside the said orders and restored earlier order, dated 14-11-1972 of the Deputy Land Commissioner vide order, dated 16-8-2001.
4. Against the said impugned order, the petitioners have filed Writ Petition No,9258 of 2001 while the Provincial Government has filed Writ Petition No,431 of 2003.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the DLC had the jurisdiction to review the order under Rule 12 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972 and the learned Senior Member has acted without lawful authority while passing the impugned order. The learned A.A.-G. Contends that it was a case of clerical error and was rightly upheld by the Chief Land Commissioner. Learned counsel for the private respondents contends that the power to review with reference to clerical or arithmetical mistakes stood withdrawn w,e,f, 30-4-1975 as per proviso added to sub-Rule (3) of Rule 12. Further contention is that the matters stood finalized and no land was resumed before the cut out date i,e, 22-3-1990 specified in the judgment in the case of Qazalbash Waqf and others v.
Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and others PLD 1990 SC 99 whereby the relevant provisions of MLR-115 and the Land Reforms Act, 1977, were declared to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The precise contention is that no decisive steps having been taken before the said date, even if power of review was to be held in existence, the order passed by the DLC reviewing the earlier order and proceedings to resume the land were without lawful authority. He also challenges the locus standi of the petitioners/tenants to file this writ petition.
6. We have gone through the file of both these cases, with, the assistance of the learned counsel for the private parties as also the learned A.A.-G. We have already stated in some detail the admitted facts of these cases above. So far as the locus standi of the present petitioners is concerned, we do find that the Chief Land Commissioner did hold that they have no locus standi but upheld the order of DLC on the ground that it tantamounts to correct a clerical or an arithmetical error. Be that as it may, the.Objection looses relevance as the Provincial Government has also challenged the impugned order.
7. It is a matter of record that till 23-3-1990, no decisive steps were taken in the matter and no land was resumed. Needless to state that no occasion arose for the self-executory provisions of MLR-115 or the Land Reforms Act, 1977, to come into play. In fact, the review application itself was filed almost 10 years after the said cut out date laid down in the said judgment in the case of Qazalbash Waqf and others. We, therefore, do find that the orders impugned before the learned Senior Member, Federal Land Commission, were wholly without jurisdiction. The Chief Land Commissioner did observe that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the said application. He proceeded to support and uphold the impugned order of DLC with reference to sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972, but he completely failed to take note of the proviso added to the same sub-rule (3) providing that the power of review under the said sub-rule shall come to an end on 30-4-1975. He, therefore, relied upon a provision which had ceased to be effective more than 25 years before passing of the order by him on 14-3-2001.
8. For all that has been discussed above, both the writ petitions are dismissed. However, no orders as to costs.
Cited by 2 cases
- Chairman, Federal Land Commission vs Mst. Sanam Iqbal etc 2020 LHC 1978, 2021 PLD Lahore 42
- Syed MOHSIN NAQVIand others vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSIONand others 2010 YLR 3248