' SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, J.--- These petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the judgment, dated 8-3-2006 passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi whereby C.Ps. Nos.D-1884 and 1885 of 2001 have been dismissed.
2. Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently assailed the judgment of the High Court and submitted that the same has proceeded on grounds which were not germane or available while ignoring very material grounds on which the judgment, dated 24-2- 2001 of Senior Member, Federal Land Commission was assailed. The High Court did not take into consideration all the relevant material evidence and aspects of the case which has resulted in great prejudice to the petitioners, He assailed the judgment on the following grounds:--
(i) that transaction of gift in favour of the grandsons was completed in all respects and was validated by the Chief Land Commissioner vide his order, dated 18-3-1960;
(ii) that M.L.R. 115 which was promulgated in 1972 could not be given retrospective effect so as to effect the past and closed transactions;
(iii) that the amendment made in Paragraph 7 of M.L.R. 115 of 1972 restricting the gift to heirs only was violative of the Shia Law of Inheritance according to which the grandson was a heir during the life time of his father;
(iv) that the orders of the Federal Land Commissioner dated 18-9-1976 and 21-4-2001 declaring the gift in favour of grandson as invalid as well as the judgment of the High Court had violated the fundamental right of the petitioners under Art.24 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan providing guarantee to be governed by the faith which he professes;
(v) that in view of the ratio of judgment in the case of Inamur Rehman v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1992 SCM R 563 the aggrieved party could take appropriate remedy . And the measures for redress of his fundamental rights after they were revived; and
(vi) lastly, that the forums under the Land Reforms Act and M.L.R.115 were not properly constituted as directed by the High Court.
3. Leave to appeal is granted to consider amongst others the aforesaid questions/issues. It is, however, clarified that C.P.L.A. No,24/K of 2004 according to the report of the office is barred by time by 4 days. As similar and identical questions in both the petitions are involved, therefore, leave has been granted in both the petitions but decision of C.P.L.A. No,224-K of 2006 on merits will be subject to condonation of delay.
C.M.As. Nos.332 and 333 of 2006. Issue notices to the respondents for a date to be fixed by the office. Till then the operation of the impugned judgment shall remain suspended.