GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (LAW AND JUSTICE) DIVISION vs QAZALBASH WAQF, LAHORE and 26 others

ORDER

' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---By this review petition the Government of Pakistan seeks review of our judgment dated 10-8-1989 whereby a number of appeals under Chapter 3-A of the Constitution were disposed of by a consolidated judgment concerning the Land Reforms Regulation of 1972 (M.L.R. 115 of 1972) and Land Reforms Act, 1977 (Act II of 1977).

2. The subject-matter of this review petition is confined to a reconsideration of the finding of this Court that notwithstanding the Constitutional provisions contained in Article 253 and the definition of the `law' in Chapter 3-A of the Constitution so as to exclude Constitutional provisions, the Court has held that the jurisdiction was possessed for holding the fixation of the ceiling on land holdings to be repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. The contention is that in the process a Constitutional provision has been rendered nugatory and this could not be achieved as a Constitutional provision has been kept out of the definition of 'law' contained in Article 203-B (c) of the Constitution. The other ground of attack on the judgment is that the Court having held that it was permissible in Islam to have a ceiling on land holding fixed, the Court should not have proceeded to declare section 3 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 and paragraph 8 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 as repugnant to the injunctions of Islam, as these provisions only fix the ceiling.

3. The presence and effect of Article 253 of the Constitution on the jurisdiction of the Court seized of a matter under Chapter 3-A of the Constitution was considered at great length in the various opinions recorded on this specific subject. What the learned counsel representing the Federation seeks is actually a re-hearing of the matter so far as this particular question is concerned and not invocation of any of the grounds available for getting the judgment reviewed. In the circumstances, we feel that such a rehearing or reconsideration of the matter in review is not permissible under the law.

4. It is true that the judgment upholds the fixing of a ceiling on land holding but it does so with two important limitations or qualifications. The first is that such a law fixing the ceiling on land holding could not be applied retrospectively so as to deprive the people of land in excess of the ceiling so fixed. The second was that violation of the ceiling limit could be prospectively penalized and controlled only in cases of voluntary acquisition of property. Involuntary accretions resulting in exceeding the ceiling as in the matter of inheritance, could not be penalized by forfeiture of the excess or its resumption. As the provision of the fixation of ceiling in the Land Reforms Act, 1977 was coupled with these two vicious or repugnant features, the ceiling so fixed was itself declared to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. It was not that the fixation of ceiling in the abstract and prospectively was considered repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam.

5. An elaborate discussion has taken place in the judgment with regard to the definition of 'person' contained in subsection (7) of section 2 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 so as to include an Islamic Waqf and other charitable institutions of like nature in order to hold that such institutions had a distinctive character and could not be treated as individuals or persons brought under the regulatory provisions of the Land Reforms Act. The distinctive features having been brought out in the judgment, no case is made out for modification of the view or its reversal.

6. Review petition is also barred by 144 days for which no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming.

On merits too no case for review has been made out. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.