ALLAHDAD KHAN Versus OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY FLC/JOINT SECRETARY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LAND REFORMS SECRETARIAT, RAWALPINDI

1. AJMAL MIAN, C J. --This petition is directed against the order dated 31-12-1976, passed by respondent 1, in exercise of suo motu revisional powers under paragraph 29 of Martial Law Regulation 115 (hereinafter referred to as the MLR), accepting four objections of the Inspection Team of the Federal Land Commission, namely:-

2. "(a) That the declarant has disclosed the alienation of exchange with one Mohammad Usman. The Deputy Land Commissioner wrongly did not include in the holding of the declarant the area received by him in exchange.

(b) That an area of 100-04 acres was owned by the declarant in Deh 21.3 which was neither declared by him nor the Deputy Land Commissioner included it in the holding of the declarant.

(c) That an area of 67-(W acres was possessed by the declarant in Deh 276 which he even declared in the declaration forms filed under MLR 115 but the same was wrongly excluded from the holding of the declarant by the Deputy Land Commissioner.

(d) That the tractor concession was wrongly allowed to the declarant as no adequate evidence for ownership thereof was produced."

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition.

4. Mr. M. Ismail H. Memon, learned counsel for the petitioner, has candidly conceded objection mentioned at sub-paragraph (a) hereinabove. However, as regards the objection contained in sub-paragraph (b), he has invited our attention to order dated 7-9-1972, passed by Deputy Land Commissioner, Tharparkar at Mirpurkhas in Case No. 467/1972 holding that the difference of 100-04 acre's in respect of the holding of Mir Mohammad Khan Deh 213 is on account of the fact that the same was gifted by Nawab Mir Allahdad Khan in 1942 in favour of Mohammad Khan, who was in possession since then, which order was confirmed by the order dated 16-6-1979, passed by Deputy Land Commissioner, Tharparkar in Case No. LR/829 of 1979 (Annexure `I' to the above petition). In view of the above factual position, the above second objection contained in above sub-paragraph (b) should not have been accepted.

5. As regards the objection contained in sub-paragraph (c), it has been submitted by Mr. M. Ismail Memon, learned counsel for the petitioner, that this difference was on account of mistake as the declarant had shown 406 acres in the declaration in place of 339 acres which was the actual holding and that the above mistake could not have been the basis for non-acceptance of the declaration of the petitioner. This plea is to be investigated by respondent No.1, as we intend to remand the case on the above point.

6. Referring to the last objection contained in sub-paragraph (d) referred to hereinabove, it will suffice to observe that in a number of cases, we have held and so also the other Division Benches that the concession in relation to the owning of a tractor cannot be denied merely on the ground that it was not registered in the name of the declarant if factually the tractor was purchased by a declarant before the target date and if it was in working condition certified by the officer concerned. Reference may he made in this behalf to the cases of (1) Mst. Fatima v. Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Sind and 3 others (1981 CLC 942), (2) Mir Rasool Bux v. Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land Commission and another PLD 1983 Kar. 346 and (3) Ghulam Mustafa v. Officer on Special, Duty, Federal I-and Commission and another (1984 CLC 824).

7. We would, therefore, allow the above petition and declare the impugned order as being without lawful authority. However, we would remand the case to respondent or any other officer acting in this behalf to go into the question, whether there was factually the mistake committed by a declarant by mentioning 406 acres instead of 339 acres. However. there will be not order as to costs.

8. M.A.K./A-566/K

9. Petition allowed.