' This appeal has been filed to challenge the order. Dated 27-11-1978 passed by the learned Land Commissioner, Multan Division whereby he accepted the request of the respondent to surrender the land of his choice for resumption under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1977.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent-declarant failed to submit declaration under subsection (1) of section 7 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977. After having received an information to this effect, the learned Deputy Land Commissioner, Sahiwal initiated proceedings under subsection (5) of section 7. Consequently he determined the holding of the respondent and ordered resumption of an area measuring 72 kanals and 19 marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. 13/6- min, 7, 8, 13, 14-mM, 14/7 to 9, 10, 11 of village Muhammadpur, Nauabad, in Tehsil. Pakpattan of Sahiwal District, being in excess of the prescribed limit of 8000 P. I. Us. The respondent filed a petition for review of this order to the learned Deputy Land Commissioner but it was rejected.
Thereafter he went up in revision before the learned Land Commissioner, Multan Division on The ground among others that he had not been allowed to exercise his choice surrender the excess area for resumption. While rejecting the revision petition on the point that the land belonging to the respondent had been evaluated on the basis of wrong calculation of P. I, Us., the Land Commissioner accepted his choice to surrender 110 kanals and 14 marlas consisting of Khasra Nos.
22/17, 19, 21, 22, 23/25, 34/4, 5, 6, 14, 15, 35/9, 10, 11 equivalent to 474 P. I. Us. In village Jumman Shah, Tehsil Pakpattan. Feeling aggrieved by this order the respondent preferred a second revision before the then Additional Chief Land Commissioner on the solitary ground of alleged wrong assesse of P.
I. Us. For the purposes of determination of his holding but he failed.
3. At the outset the learned 'counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since his clients were not impleaded as a party to the proceedings before the learned Land Commissioner, the period of limitation should be reckoned from the date of knowledge of the appellants. By doing so it will be seen that the appeal is well within the time-limit.
4. As regards the merits of the case the only point taken up before me is that the appellants are bona fide purchasers, of the land allowed to be surrendered by the respondent in village Jumman Shah by virtue of a registered sale-deed which was subsequently given effect to in the revenue records through Mutation No, 199 sanctioned on 20-7-1978. Since all the formalities relating to alienation of land were completed, the respondent ceased to be the owner of the land. He had no right to exercise his choice in respect of the land which did not fall in his ownership.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the petitioners purchased the land in dispute on 27-12-1977 by mafias of a registered deed whereas it was part and partial of the holding of the respondent on the crucial date i,e, 4-1-1977. In determining the holding of a declarant the Land Commission Authorities have to take into account the entries in the Revenue Records for Kharif, 1976 on the basis of which the land is evaluated in terms of P. I. Us. It was also pointed out that section 6 of the Act leaves no room for doubt that the transfer of any land made in any manner whatsoever in respect of any area by the declarant after the commencement of the Act is void. The only remedy left to the petitioners is to file a civil suit and claim either land for land from the retained area of the declarant or the price of the land paid to the respondent. In support of his contention the learned counsel also referred to Punjab Land Commission letter No, DSH- 863/72/2627-LC, dated 30-6-1972 containing the advice of the Ministry of Law which reads as follows :- "Where any transfer of land becomes or is held to be void the effect will be that the vendor shall be deemed always to have been the owner or person in possession of the land. The vendee whose right is being effected should be made a party to the enquiry. Where transfer is held to be or becomes void, the vendee can recover the price paid by him to the vendor through the Court or otherwise. The Land Commission would not be competent to deduct the land in question from the area to be retained by the declarant.
6. I have carefully gone through the section and the advice of the Ministry of Law and find myself in entire agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent. The transaction was admittedly made after the commencement of the Land Reforms Act i,e, on 4-1-1977 and is, therefore ab initio void beyond any reasonable doubt so far as the determination of the holding of the respondent under the provisions of the Act is concerned. The petitioner, may, if they so desire, seek remedy in the competent Court of civil jurisdiction.
' In the circumstance I am satisfied that the orders passed by the learned Land Commissioner were perfectly in order and I see no reason to interfere. The appeal fails and is dismissed hereby.