ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION

AJMAL MIAN, CJ. --This petition is directed against an order dated 7 2-1979 passed by respondent No.l m purported exercise of suo motu revisional power under para 29 of the M.L.R. 115 whereby he has held certain sale transactions as invalid on the ground that the vendors were minors and that the sale transactions were not completed through registered sale-deed.

2. For the purpose of the disposal of the above case, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the above conclusion as by virtue of Section 25 of Act Il of 1977, the proceedings, which were pending before respondent No. l were to abate subject to the proviso that the Government by a notification may keep a case or class of cases pending. It appears that the Government by a general notification dated 23-9-1978 purported to direct that the proceedings in cases under para 29 of the M.L.R. 115 before the Federal Land Commission on the commencement of the aforesaid Act shall not stand abated. The above notification was impugned inter alia in C.P. No.D-2069 of 1979 (Sher Muhammad and others v. Member Federal Land Commission and others decided on 1-11-1988, in which we have held that the same was ultra vires of Section 25 of the Act. The relevant observations are as follows:-

"We are inclined to hold that under above-quoted Section 25 the Federal Government had the power to direct that a case or class of cases would not stand abated but it could not have issued the impugned Notification directing that all the cases which were pending before the Federal Land Commission before the enactment of the Act shall not be abated. The impugned Notification in fact purports to nullify the effect of Section 25 of the Act as a whole and, therefore it is ultra vires of the powers of the' Federal Government. In this view of the matter, the impugned notice issued in pursuance of the above impugned Notification also cannot be sustained."

3. Since in the above petition also the impugned order has been passed in pursuance of the above notification, the same cannot be sustained.

4. The petition is, therefore allowed and the impugned order is declared as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. However, there will be no 113 order as to costs. A copy of this judgment may be sent to the Advocate for the; Petitioners.

M.A.K./A-582/K

Petition accepted