FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION vs SOHRAB KHAN And Other
This matter arises from an appeal filed by the Federal Land Commission against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which had set aside the order of the Federal Land Commission declaring certain land alienations void under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was the legality and propriety of the High Court's judgment setting aside the Commission's order, which had invalidated three sale transactions made by the original landowner. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court rightly concluded that the alienations were valid and bona fide transactions supported by adequate consideration and actual transfer of possession. The Court laid down the principle that findings of the Federal Land Commission regarding the invalidity of land alienations cannot be sustained when they are based on mere presumptions rather than evidence on record, and transactions proven to be genuine with transferred possession and paid land revenue must be upheld.
- Whether findings of the Federal Land Commission regarding land alienations can be based on mere presumptions rather than evidence?
- Are alienations of land made during the specified period under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 valid when supported by adequate consideration and transfer of possession?
- Did the High Court correctly set aside the order of the Federal Land Commission under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Paragraph 29, Land Reforms Regulation 1972
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--Facts of this case briefly stated are that Abdul Hamid (deceased), father of respondent No. 1 and grandfather of respondent No. 13, owned considerable agricultural land in Tehsil Jhatpat, District Nasirabad. On the promulgation of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, he filed a declaration disclosing that during the period specified i.e. From 1-3-1967 to 19-12-1971 he, among others, made three alienations by way of sale in favour of respondents 2 to 13. His declaration was accepted by the Land Commissioner, Baluchistan by the order dated 13-7-1972. Subsequently on the instructions of a learned Member, Federal Land Commission, the Land Commissioner, Baluchistan referred the case to the Chief Land Commissioner, Baluchistan who also under his order dated 25-8-1973 upheld the alienations in question as valid and bona fide.
2. However, according to the new incumbent of the Office of the Chief Land Commissioner in the year 1976, the said alienations were not valid, and he referred the case to the Federal Land Commission for examination under the revisional powers conferred by paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation. Accordingly the case was re-opened, and the Officer-on-Special Duty, Federal Land Commission who dealt with it held, by the order dated 26-11-1976, that the gift transactions were valid, but the three sale transactions were void.
3. Respondents challenged the order of the Federal Land Commission in a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution before the Baluchistan High Court, Quetta which was allowed with the result that the High Court set aside the impugned order as without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.
4. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court in order to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of High Court.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant in the light of the arguments addressed by him we find that no exception can be taken with the view that has prevailed with the learned Judges in the High Court, for, on the material produced by the respondents it was satisfactorily proved that adequate consideration for the alienations in question had been paid, and these were valid transactions under the law. The High Court was also satisfied on the basis of the record that "the possession (of land) has been transferred to the petitioners (respondents herein) and they have been paying the land revenue We also agree with the views of the learned Judges that the findings of the learned Officer-on-Special-Duty, Federal Land Commission "is not based on any evidence but it has been recorded on mere presumption".
6. For these reasons, there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. In the circumstances, however, the parties are left to bear their own costs.