CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, LAHORE vs Makhdoom Syed NAZAR

ORDER

1. ' HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This petition is barred by four days. The judgment in writ petition by the High Court was announced on the 23rd November, 1973, and the copy of the judgment was applied for on the same day by the office of the Advocate-General, Punjab. The copy was completed on the 12th February, 1974 and taken delivery of on the 13th February, 1974. It was sent to the office of the petitioner, the Chief Land Commissioner, on the 24th February, 1974, and received by his office on the 25th February, 1974. It was marked to the Record Keeper on the 4th March, 1974, but he did not bring it to the notice of the Assistant Secretary or Secretary or Legal Adviser till the 7th April, 1974. Then the completion of the process for the filing of the petition for special leave to appeal took nine days. The petition was, accordingly, filed on the 17th April, 1974.

2. The delay, it seems, has been due to the negligence of the dealing officials in the office of the Land Commission. In the application for the condo nation of the delay, this has been admitted and it has been mentioned that action has been initiated against the defaulting officials. In the circumstances this short delay of four days can be excused. The delay is, accordingly, condoned.

3. ' The writ petition in the High Court was filed for calling in question an Order of the Chief Land Commissioner passed on the 30th September, 1969, n the exercise of his suo motu revisional jurisdiction, whereby he had set aside an order of the Land Commissioner passed on the 9th November, 1960, nd held that the gift purported to be made by the respondent, Makhdoom yed Nazar Hussain Shah, in 1951 in favour of his wife, Mst. Parveen khtar, and his minor son, Mukhtar Hussain, in equal shares, which was ought to be given effect to by mutation No, 36 entered on 2-1- 1952, with egard to 2,060 kanals and 8 marals of land situated in village Ratla, Tehsil hanewal, District Multan, was not protected under M, L. R. 64 of 1959.

4. ' The above-mentioned mutation was, it appears, at first rejected by the assistant Collector on 21- 6-1953, but it was sanctioned in review on 4-7-1960.

5. ' The case of the donor, who is a big landlord, was taken up under atrial Law Regulation No, 6i of 1959 (Land Reforms Regulations) by the deputy Land Commissioner who, on the 14th May, 1959, referred the matter the Land Commissioner. The latter, by his order of 5-6-1959 held that gift of 62 acres, 4 kanals and 10 marlas had been completed by transfer if the land, but the gift of the rest of the area had not been so completed. Nevertheless, he observed in his order that the donor could possibly still ply for the review of the order, whereby, the mutation had been rejected the Assistant Collector. The donor and dunes, it appears, had already plied to the Collector for the Review of the order of 21-6-53. This remission was granted on 15-7-60 and the Assistant Collector was asked review his previous order. This was done and the mutation was sanctioned 24-7-60.

6. ' The matter then went to the Deputy Land Commissioner for the libation of the gift. The latter recommended the matter to the Chief and Commissioner suggesting that the Chief Land Commissioner could I review the order to avoid technicalities or, in the alternative, could you permission to the Land Commissioner to review his previous order.

7. ' The Chief Land Commissioner did not feel inclined to take up the titer in his suo motu revisional jurisdiction but gave permission to the and Commissioner to proceed in review. The Land Commissioner then his order of 2-11-1960 validated the gift in toto.

8. ' Subsequently, in 1965, however, the Chief Land Commissioner again up the matter in his suo mctu provisional jurisdiction and by his order the 30th September, 1969, held the gift in dispute to be invalid, with result that the land in dispute had to be added to the holding of the nor.

9. ' The Chief Land Commissioner had given a number of reasons for interring in sun motu revision with the order of the Land Commissioner but the h Court felt that :-

(1) He had misread the record in assuming that the total area shown in the details given in the mutation entry was less, because, the Chief Land Commissioner had not taken the trouble to see the original mutation records.

(2) The doubt cast by the Chief Land Commissioner on the declaration of gift made by the donor was due to non-consideration of material evidence, namely, the answers to the interrogatories which contained the signatures and endorsements of all local officials.

(3) The Chief Land Commissioner had also failed to notice that the plea that the donor and the dunes bad no knowledge of the rejection of the mutation by the Assistant Collector was established on the findings of the Collector, the Land Commissioner and also the reports of the local field staff.

10. ' The learned Judge in the High Court also held that the order of the Chief Land Commissioner suffered from a patent error of law in so far as he had come to the conclusion that the delivery of possession of a part of the gifted property was sufficient to validate the gift only with regard to that part and not to the rest. There was, however, abundant authority for the proposition that delivery of possession of part of the gifted property I sufficient to complete the gift of the whole of the property.

11. ' The High Court was also of the view that the Chief Land Commissioned had not dealt with the matter of the genuineness of the gift but preceded more on the sanction or rejection of mutation.

12. The view of the Chief Land Commissioner that without settling the question of mutation, the authority were not justified in or authorized to validate the gift was without legal foundation.

13. ' Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has also contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Chief Land Commissioner in the writ jurisdiction. The High Court had it is contended, exceeded its own jurisdiction by treating the matter as if I was an appeal before it. No grounds for the issuance of certiorari existed mere erroneous decision, it is said, could not be struck down in the certiorari jurisdiction.

14. We are unable to agree that the High Court had misconceived the scoop of its own jurisdiction under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962 Under the provisions of that Constitution, the High Court could interfere with the orders of the Cal Land Commissioner, if they were based on misreading of evidence or suffered from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. As indicated earlier, the High Court was fully conscious of the limits of its own jurisdiction and had, therefore, been careful enough to indicate specifically the grounds for its interference. No just exception is taken to the order of the High Court. It has in detail brought out the misreading of the evidence, the non- consideration of the material evidence the erroneous assumption of facts made by the Chief Land Commissioned and the patent error of law committed by him.

15. ' In the circumstances, we are unable to agree that this is a fit case for the grant of special leave to appeal. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed on merits.