FAQIR MUHAMMAD AND Others vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND Other
This matter arises from a petition challenging orders passed under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, whereby certain oral gifts of land made by the petitioner Faqir Muhammad in favour of his sons and daughters were declared void by the Land Commissioner and affirmed through subsequent appellate, review, and revisional forums, concluding with the Federal Land Commission. The High Court of Sind dismissed the constitutional petitions filed against these orders, holding that there was no proof of the alleged gifts and that possession of the land remained with the donor. The core legal question addressed is whether unproven oral gifts of land can be validated as bona fide alienations under paragraph 7 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that in the absence of proof of the transactions and delivery of possession, the question of the bona fides of the alienations does not arise. The key principle laid down is that an oral gift under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, requires strict proof of the transaction and delivery of possession to be sustained.
- Whether oral gifts of land under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 require proof of delivery of possession?
- Can the bona fides of an alienation be examined when the underlying transaction of gift is not proved?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the non-proof of land alienations?
- Paragraph 7, Land Reforms Regulation 1972
- Paragraph 29, Land Reforms Regulation 1972
ORDER
1. FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-On the promulgation of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, the petitioner Faqir Muhammad filed a declaration disclosing leis holding and sought validation of certain alienations made by him by way o--- gift in favour of his sons- and daughters who are the petitioners in the connected leave petition No. K-84 of 1980. This declaration was scrutinized by the Land Commissioner and Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, under paragraph 7 of the Regulation and vide his order dated 16-8-1972, all the alienations made by the petitioner in favour of the donees were declared to be void. Faqir Muhammad filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed by the Chief Land Commissioner on 25-6-1973. He then applied for review of this order which was also dismissed on 8-7-1974. A revision application filed under paragraph 29 of the Regulation met the same fate vide order dated 6-12-1974 made by the Member, Federal Land Commission.
2. The aforesaid orders were challenged before the High Court of Sind in two separate petitions, one filed by the petitioner Faqir Muhammad and the other by the donees, his sons and daughters, who are as mentioned above, are petitioners in the connected leave petition. The High Court dismissed the two petitions on the ground that no, interference was called for on the finding of fact given by the Land Commission Officers that there was no proof of gifts allegedly made by Faqir Muhammad in favour of his sons and daughters. The. High Court also agreed with the finding given by the Land Commission Officers that the possession of the land allegedly gifted, continued to remain with the donor Faqir Muhammad.
3. Mr. Imam A.I G. Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that under proviso to clause (b) of Paragraph 7 of the Regulation, it was pot open to the Land Commission to question bona fides of alienations made by a person in favour of his heirs and it was, therefore, not open to the Land Commission to invalidate the transfers made by the petitioner Faqir Muhammad in favour of his heirs, the sons and daughters byway of gift. The argument is irrelevant inasmuch as there would be no occasion to examine bona fides of a transactions in absence of proof of a transaction such as gifts in the present case. The learned Judges of the High Court, whit dismissing the two petitions have given cogent reasons for agreeing with the finding arrived at by the Land Commission that the gifts were never proved and in any event, its possession never passed to the donees. The gifts, it ma be noticed, were said to be oral and it was, therefore, incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that possession of the land allegedly gifted had bee delivered to the donees. The High Court was right in not interfering with the finding of fact arrived at by the successive officers of the Land Commission that the alienations made by Faqir Muhammad in favour of his sons and daughters were not proved.
4. The result, therefore, is that there is no merit in these petitions and they are accordingly dismissed.