' ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J.---By way of these petitions---one,bearing No,D-1884 of 2001, filed by the heirs of the donor namely, Sardar Noor Muhammad Khan Bijarani and the other, bearing No,D-1885 of 2001 filed by the donees, namely, Chakar Ali Khan, Imdad Ali Khan and Gul Muhammad Khan, grandsons of the donor and sons of Sardar Sher Muhammad Khan the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24-2-2001 passed by the Senior Member, Federal Land Commission, declaring transfer of 258-36 acres of land, situated in deh Bijarani, Taluka Khanpur, District Shikarpur, made on 27-9-1968 by Sardar Noor Muhammad Khan Bijarani, by way of gift, in favour of his aforesaid grandsons, void.
2. According to paragraph 7(1)(b) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, read with its two proviso, transfer of any land made by any person holding land equivalent to or more than twelve thousand produce index units at any time during the period from 1-3-1967 to 19-12-1971 shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, void, except where the Commission is satisfied that the transaction is bona fide, but in no case transfer of land by way of gift in favour of the non-heir shall be held to be a bona fide transaction. And according to explanation-1 of the paragraph, 'an heir means the owner's wife or wives, sons, daughters, father, mother and sons and daughters of a deceased son or daughter'.
3. The contention of Mr. K.B. Bhutto, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions, that the Commission was not justified in holding the grandsons as non-heirs, is without any force. Neither according to the definition given in the law i.e, Explanation-1 of Paragraph 7(1)(b) ibid, nor under the Muhammadan Law, they can be treated as heirs, inasmuch as their father petitioner Sardar Sher Muhammad Khan is alive. They were not the heirs of the donor even at the time of his death, though the relevant date would be the date of the gift.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue that the gift might have been made orally before the cutoff date and the date mentioned in the record of rights might be the date of their declaration which can be made at any time after the oral gift, but when confronted with the contents of the memos of the petitions and the documents filed with them, he frankly conceded that it was not the case of the petitioners at any time and there was no scope or justification for making such assumption.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly argued that the donees (petitioners in Petition No,D- 1885 of 2001) were not afforded proper opportunity of hearing, in the sense that they were not themselves heard before passing the impugned order. Apparently, the argument might seem attractive but, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are not persuaded to agree with him, inasmuch as, thelitigation, extending over a very long period of three decades (during which the matter was earlier remanded by this Court also) was beinghotly contested throughout, firstly by the grandfather of the donees and after his death by their father, only for their (donees) benefit. It cannot be said that they were unaware of the litigation. It is also not their case that they had any difference with their father or grandfather. As a matter of fact, both were struggling for saving the transaction of gift in favour of the donees. Indeed, the donees, who have availed the full opportunity of hearing before us, have failed to make out any case in their favour. In such circumstances, the remand of case to the lower forum will not advance any cause of justice.
It will serve no useful purpose and on the contrary will have the effect of only further prolonging the litigation which has been already protracted unduly. After arriving at the conclusion that the petitioners had no case on merits, we had dismissed the petitions on 2-2-2006 by a short order and these are the reasons for the same.