JUDGMENT MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J.- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 12.4.1994 delivered by the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 4149/94.
Jamal Khan, father of the petitioners, was held by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Kasur under, his order dated 26.12.1979 to be a declarant and owner of 1377 kanals, 5 marlas of land equivalent to 14,466 PIUs. On 9.1.1977 Land Reforms Act, 19/7 came in force. Section 3 of said Act put limitation on individual holding and the maximum ceiling was fixed to be 100 acres of irrigated land or 200 acres of unirrigated land or an area equivalent to 8000 produce index units, whichever shall be greater. A person who owned land in excess to his entitlement, as per section 3, was to exercise his option and surrender the excess land vide section 4(1) and (2) of said Act. In pursuance of provisions of said Act, 626 kanals, 16 marlas of land equivalent to 6466 PIUs allotted to the father of the petitioners was resumed and such resumption was reflected in mutation dated 16.2.1980. Father of the petitioners, being aggrieved by such resumption of land, moved higher authorities and under an . Order dated 9.4.1981, the Senior Member, Federal Land Commission, remanded case of the petitioners' father to the Deputy Land Commissioner for correct determination of classification of land in the light of the relevant Nehri Chakbandi and Khatoni Nehri. After remand, the Deputy Land Commissioner inspected the concerned land and confirmed the change in classification of land under his report in Roznamcha Waqiati dated 29.3.1983. The Deputy Land Commissioner assessed total holding of petitioners' father to be 10199 PIUs and asked him to exercise choice under section 4(1)' of said Act for surrender of the excess area of 259 kanals, 1 maria equivalent to 2199 PIUs.
Father of the petitioners exercised his choice and 259 kanals, 1 maria of land allotted to him was resumed.
3. After all this, father of the petitioners filed an appeal before the Land Commissioner, Lahore against order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 6.7.1983 by which holding of the petitioners' 'father was redetermined under direction of the Federal Land Commission given in the remand order dated 9.4.1981. Said appeal was dismissed by the Land Commissioner under an order dated 30.9.1986 on the ground that no irregularity was committed in passing of the order by the Deputy Land Commissioner dated 6.7.1983. The order dated 30.9.1986 passed by the Land Commissioner was assailed before the Chief Land Commissioner in a revision application No. R.O.R. (L.R) No. 2781/86. Said revision application was rejected by the Chief Land commissioner under his order dated 29.8.1990. The order dated 29.8.1990 passed by the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab was impugned by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4149 of 1994 in the Lahore High Court. Said writ petition was dismissed in .Limine by a learned Division Bench of the High Court on 12.4.1994. .Hence this petition.
4. Mr. Muhammad Zainul Abidin, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that, inter alia, sections 3 & 9 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 were directed to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam in the case of Qazalbash Waqf and others Vs. Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and others (PLD 1990 SC 99). It is further argued that an order becomes final only if revisional jurisdiction is exercised. In this respect the learned counsel also referred to the rules framed under the Land Reforms Act, 1977. He further argued that the disputed land had all along remained in possession of the petitioners who had succeeded Jamal Khan.
5. The case of Qazalbash Waqf (PLD 1990 SC 99) was decided by the Shariat Appellate Bench of this Court on 10.8.1989. No doubt, in said case sections 3 to 6, 7(5) and 8 to 17 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 were found to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam to the extent indicated in the said judgment. It was made clear in said judgment that the same shall not affect those cases in which any decisive step had been taken or was being taken in the ordinary normal course at any stage of the proceedings, in the implementation of the provisions which would cease to have affect as a result of the said judgment, prior to the date to be fixed therein. This observation is complete answer to the contentions raised by. The learned counsel that in view of the repugnancy of the said provisions the past steps and decisions taken shall stand re-open.
6. The factual position is that so far as the case of father of the petitioners was concerned, it remained a closed chapter on 30.9.1986 as rightly observed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court. Perusal of the impugned order dated 29.8.1990 shows that right of hearing was extended to the petitioners not once but on various days but they did not avail of the chance. The petitioners had not been able to make out that order of remand passed by a learned Senior Member, Federal Land Commission on 9.4.1981 was not followed in letter and spirit by the Deputy Commissioner. We find that the Chief Land Commissioner called for the relevant record from the Irrigation Department for Kharif 1976 to satisfy himself whether classification of the land was done correctly and if there was wrong calculation of PIUs.
7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no substance in this petition which stands dismissed.