REHMAT ALI Versus CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER

ORDER

MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE. J.‑ ‑The dispute relates to a land measuring 44 kanals forming part of Khasra Nos.1995, 4529, 6722 and 6723,. situate in village Jamshed Khan, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur, This area forms part of the land surrendered by one 14,q‑ih‑ijci‑F)in, a displaced person from non‑agreed area under para. 8 of M.L.R 89 as amended. by M.L.R.

91. Somehow or the other, erroneously the land was considered as resumed land under the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 (M.L.R. 115), treated under cultivating possession of the petitioner and as such allotted to him on 16‑3‑1978 under the orders of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Kasur. Some litigation ensued further on, between the parties, in respect of this land, with the details whereof this order need not be burdened, and it would suffice to refer to final order dated 22‑7‑1987 passed by the Chief Land Commissioner Punjab, on Revision Petition No. 63 of 1987 and 64/87 filed by respondents Nos. 5 and 6 herein. This order is under challenge in this writ petition. Its operative part runs as under:

"The revenue record shows that none of the parties was in possession of the impugned land in 1961‑62. The allotment of land made in the name of respondent was also evidently against the provision of M.L.R. 89/91. Actually the land was not available for disposal under the Land Reforms Rules. It was rather land surrendered by an allottee of non‑agreed area and thereafter could only be dealt with under the Scheme prepared for the disposal of surrendered land under M.L.R. 89/91, without going into the merits of the case the allotment in the name of respondent under M.L.R. 115 was ab initio void and could not b~e made. It is, therefore, ordered that the allotment made in favour of Rehmat Ali respondent should be resumed forthwith. The case is remanded to the District Collector, Kasur for further disposal of land under M.L.R 89/91."

2. The only point urged by the learned counsel to assail the validity of the impugned order is that vide order dated 29‑9‑1983 passed by the learned Member, Federal Land Commission, the allotment in favour of the petitioner stood confirmed and validated; the impugned order amounts to interference with the orders of the Federal Land Commission and thus, suffered from lack of jurisdiction. '

3. Before us, it has been rightly conceded that the land having been surrendered under M.L.R. 89/91 had to be dealt with under a separate Scheme formulated for the disposal of the land surrendered under M.L.R. 89/91. It is, thus, obvious that the view taken by the Chief Land Commissioner to the effect. that the allotment to the petitioner under M.L.R. No.115, was void, ab initio,, is not open to any exception.

4. As regards the validity of the exercise of revisional power by the Chief Land Commissioner, it is discernible from the record that on the respondent's move the Land Commissioner, Lahore, by his order dated 25‑11‑1979 allowed the Deputy Land Commissioner to review his order dated 16‑3‑1978. Consequently, that order was recalled and allotment of the petitioner, cancelled on 16‑2‑1981. His appeal and revision before the Land Commissioner and the Additional Chief Land Commissioner could not succeed. Ultimately, the matter was lifted before the Federal Land Commission, culminating in the aforesaid order dated 29‑3‑1983. The argument which largely influenced the decision of the learned Member, Federal Land Commission, was that the Land Commissioner's order dated 25‑11‑1979 was violative of Rule 12 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1977, inasmuch as no power vested in him to grant permission for review and thus the Deputy Land Commissioner's order of 16‑2‑1981 was without jurisdiction and that the subsequent orders confirming the same suffered from the same infirmity. It is thus, to be noticed that the question that disposal of the land was governed by the provisions of M.L.R.89/91 and not the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972, was not at all examined by _ Federal Land Commission. It is evident from the order dated 29‑9‑1983 that the learned Member interfered with the orders of the Authorities below, wholly on a technical point, rested on Rule 12, ibid.‑

5. The case needs to be examined from another angle. The petitioner participated in the proceedings before the Chief Land Commissioner without any demur and rather acquiesced therein. It is only when an adverse order was passed against him that he thought of raising the question of jurisdiction. In the body of the writ petition it is nowhere stated that the petitioner was unaware that the Chief Land Commissioner lacked jurisdiction. The case is squarely hit by the ratio of the Supreme Court's Judgment in Ghulam Mohyuddin v. Chief Settlement Commissioner reported as P' L D 1954 SC 829. The learned counsel however, contended that the impugned suffers order from a patent jurisdictional defect, and therefore, cannot be allowed to stand, But, we think otherwise. In view of the clear cut legal position that the land could not be subjected to provisions of Land Reforms Regulations, 1972, interference with the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court, which is essentially discretionary, would result in perpetuating a self‑condemned allotment order. Dismissed in limine.

H.BT./R‑82/L Petition dismissed.