M.A. ZAFAR, J. --- That the respondents were declarants under MLR 115 They made some transactions during the period September 1969 to October 1970 in respect of the alienation at their and which was incorporated in the Revenue Record, and on the same day were declared valid by the Land Commissioner, Rawalpindi vide order dated 5.6.1972 in pursuance of a declaration filed by the respondents. On 6.1.1976 on the application of some persons, Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad started proceedings and after calling report from the inspection team declared the above sales as void vide order dated 7.9.1976.
2. That the above said order of the Chairman Federal Land Commission was challenged by the respondent before this Court through Writ Petition No. 409/77 but the said writ petition was dismissed on 9.4.1981. Civil Appeal No 281/88 against the afore-said order of this Court dated 19.4.1981 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme. Court vide judgment dated 23.8.1992.
3. That during the pendency of the above-said appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, judgment in Qazalbash Waqf and others v. Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and others (PLD 1990 S.C. 99) declared the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (MLR 115) and the Land Reforms Act 1977 as repugnant to the inunctions of Islam and Sunnah with effect from 23.3.1990.
4. The Deputy Land Commissioner, Attock (respondent No. 3) issued notice dated 28.7.1994 for resumption of the land. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed Writ Petition No. 157 of 1995 in this Court asserting therein that notice dated 28.7.1994 issued by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Attock respondent. No. 3 are illegal without jurisdiction and be declared without lawful authority.
5. The notice issued by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Attock dated 28.7.1994 after 23.3.1990 when the (MLR 115) and Land Reforms Act, 1977 were declared as repugnant to the injunctions of Islam was declared to have been issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the same was accordingly quashed by a learned Single Judge vide orders dated 30.11.2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 157 of 1995.
6. Feeling aggrieved from the said order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 157 of 1995, Federal Land Commission has filed this Intra-Court Appeal whereas Deputy Commissioner, Attock who was respondent No. 1 in the writ petition filed a petition for leave to appeal (Civil Petition No. 300/2002) in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan which was dismissed being to maintainable due to the pendency of present appeal in this Court. The said order was passed on 28.9.2006. Abdul Razzaq and others tenants who were impleaded as a party in the writ petition vide order dated 27.10.1999 also filed Civil Petition No. 470/02 which was also disposed of with the following observations:--- "In view of the order passed in Civil Petition No. 300 of 2002 this petition too follows the suit with the observation that in the event the Intra-Court Appeal is found to be not maintainable, the petitioners would be at liberty to move for its revival."
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that writ petition ought to have been heard by a Division Bench and not by the learned Single Judge and notice was issued it continuation of proceedings already pending and maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 23.8.1992.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents have raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the appeal in view of the bar contained in Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 and appeal being incompetent due to non- impleading Abdul Razzaq etc. In the appeal as a party. He also submits that the present appeal is barred by time.
8. The impugned notice was issued by the Deputy Land Commissioner (respondent No. 4) in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Section 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation which reads as follows:--- "The Federal Government, or any person authorized by it in that behalf, may at any time, of its, or his on motion or otherwise, call for the record of any case or proceedings under this Regulation (or under the repealed Regulation) which is pending or in which a Commission or any other authority appointed under this Regulation (or under the repealed Regulation) other than the Federal Land Commission constituted under paragraph 4-A, has passed in order, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself about the correctness, legality or propriety of such an order, and may pass such order in relation thereto as the Federal Government or as the case may be, such person thinks fit."
9. And similarly a power of review has been given to the Federal Land Commission by virtue of Section 24 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 which reads as follow:--- "A Commission shall review a case or class of cases decided by it before or after the commencement of this Act, if so directed by the Federal Government."
10. The proviso added to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 read as follows:- Provided that the appeal referred to in this sub- section shall not be available or competent if the application brought before the High Court under Article 199 arises out of any proceedings in which the law applicable provided for at least one appeal (or one revision or one review) to any Court, Tribunal or authority against the original order."
11. Since a right of review/revision has been provided under the Act and the Regulation against the original order from which the present proceedings commenced, so in view whereof intra-Court Appeal is not competent by virtue of Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. Reliance is placed on Mst. Karim Bibi and other v. Hussain Bakhsh and another (PLD 1984 S.C. 344), Muhammad Abdullah v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Centre-I, Lahore (PLD 1985 S.C. 107).
12. Since the Intra-Court Appeal is held to be in competent so there is hardly any need to dilate upon the other issues raised by the learned counsel for the respondents qua maintainability, irritation, or effect of nonimpleading Abdul Razzaq etc. As a party in this appeal while addressing preliminary arguments. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed being not maintainable. .