' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.--- The petitioners through this constitutional petition have sought the invalidation of orders dated 5-1-2004 and 29-9-2005 passed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 respectively, whereby the aforesaid respondents while exercising the suo motu revisional powers declared the gift made on 7-12-1958 and its Mutation No,736 dated 7-12-1958, by the declarant (Maj. Shamas-ud-Din Muhammad) in favour of his wife Mst. Sardar Jehan Begum, invalid and void.
2. The facts as stated in the instant petition are that Maj. Shamasud-Din Muhammad, predecessor- in-interest of the petitioners filed declaration Form L.C.I. And L.C.II under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1958. The said declarant while filing the declaration Form included an area of 1786 Kanals, 4 Marlas situated in Mauza Lal Baghali, Tehsil Lodhran District Multan, which land, according to the petitioners, had been gifted by Maj. Shamas-ud-Din Muhammad in favour of his wife Mst. Sardar Jahan Begum vide Mutation No,736, dated 7-12-1958. The Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur who was competent to determine the holding of the declarant vide order, dated 24-6-1959 determined the holding of the declarant including the area of aforesaid gift mutation equivalent to 62478 Produce Index Units and the declarant was allowed to retain an area equivalent to 36000 Produce Index Units including the area involved in the gift deed under paras.8 and 9(a) of the Regulation (ibid) and resumed the remaining area in favour of the Government.
The said Deputy Land Commissioner vide order, dated 20-10-1959 also allowed the declarant to retain further area equivalent to 2839 Produce Index Units and vide order, dated 22-8-1962 the declarant was also allowed to retain 3 Acres land.
3. The area resumed from the declarant including area of 6000 Kanals was jointly owned by the declarant and his two brothers. The area resumed from Maj. Shamas-ud-Din Muhammad and his brother was partitioned and resumed area was sold to Ghulam Nabi and others under the sale scheme issued under para.19 of the aforesaid regulation. Being aggrieved of the said Partition Mutation No,10 Maj. Shamas-ud-Din Muhammad and his brothers filed appeal, which was allowed and a new partition was carried out. The purchaser/Ghulam Nabi and others against the said partition filed revision petition before the Chief Land Commissioner challenging the sanction of partition Mutation No,11.
4. The declarant/predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed an application on 4-4-1959 to the Deputy Land Commissioner, Multan to the effect that gift Mutation. No,736 of Mauza Lal Baghali be declared as valid because the said gift was made on 9-4-1958. The said application was recommended by the Deputy Land Commissioner with the remarks that the application be accepted. On this, the Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur on 3-4-1962 referred the matter to the Chief Land Commissioner, recommending that area involved in the said mutation No,736 be excluded from the holding of Maj. Shamas-ud-Din Muhammad and he be allowed to make up the deficiency in the permissible ceiling 36000 Produce Index Units out of area resumed from him. The recommendations were accepted by the Chief Land Commission and orders were issued accordingly vide letter, dated 27-9-1962 of the Secretary, West Pakistan Land Commission.
5. Messrs Ghulam Nabi and others filed Writ Petition No,320 of 1963 against the aforesaid orders of the Chief Land Commission but the same was dismissed in default on 12-2-1964. The said Ghulam Nabi sought the review by filing a Review Petition No,35 of 1962/63 of the orders of the Chief Land Commissioner contained in the letter of Secretary, dated 27-9-1962, the Chief Land Commission passed certain orders and finally ordered that the Review Petition No,35 of 1962-63 shall remain pending till the decision of the writ petition by this Court. Consequently, the review petition was revived on the dismissal of the writ petitions by this Court.
6. The review petition was given fresh No,16 of 1970-71 and a Revision Petition No,196 of 1963-64 filed by the said Ghulam Nabi was also revived against fresh No,52 of 1970-71. The aforesaid cases were transferred to the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab who vide order, dated 3-2-1975 decided the aforesaid revision and two other revisions while exercising the suo motu revisional jurisdiction. The said order of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner was challenged by Ghulam Nabi etc. Before this Court in writ petition and the same was dismissed on 21-9-1982. Ghulam Nabi etc. Filed a civil petition before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan but the same was too dismissed on 30-5-1994.
7. The Additional Chief Land Commission by his order, dated 28-4-1975 accepted the Review Petition No,16 of 1970-71 of Ghulam Nabi etc. And declared gift Mutation No,736 dated 7-12-1958 made in favour of Mst. Sardar Jehan Begum of Mauza Lal Baghali as void and also held that the order of Chief Land Commissioner contained in letter, dated 27-9-1962 issued by the Secretary West Pakistan Land Commission was incorrect. Against the aforesaid order, Mst. Sardar Jehan Begum in whose favour the gift Mutation No,736 was entered, filed Writ Petition No,2751, the same was allowed by this Court on 20-10-1988 whereby the order of the Additional Chief Land Commission, dated 28-4-1975 was set aside and it was observed that the review petition filed by Ghulam Nabi etc. Would be deemed to have been pending before the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab.
8. The re view petition was heard by the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab who finally accepted the same while exercising the suo motu powers conferred upon him under West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959 read with para.32 of the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 by which order the Chief Land Commission observed that Maj. Shamas-ud-Din Muhammad did not mention in his declaration Form that he had gifted an area situated in Mauza Lal Baghali in favour of his wife Mst. Sardar Jahan Begum before the target date of 8th October, 1958 as specified in para.7(1) of the Regulation, 1959, therefore, the Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur while passing the order on the declaration of Maj. Shamas-ud-Din Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners counted the area of gift Mutation No,736 of Mauza Lal Baghali in the holding of Maj. Shamas-ud-Din Muhammad and he was allowed to retain the same within the permissible limit. Further observed in the aforesaid order by the Chief Land Commissioner that neither Maj. Shamas-ud-Din Muhammad nor his wife challenged the order of the Deputy Land Commission in appeal or revision, therefore, the orders of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur attained finality under the 1959 Rules. Finally, the Chief Land Commission held that gift Mutation No,736 dated 7-12-1958 was void under para.7(1) of the Regulation, 1959 and the executive order issued by the Secretary, West Pakistan Land Commission dated 27-9-1962 was not in accordance with law and the same was too set aside.
9. The petitioners being dissatisfied of the order dated 5-1-2004 passed by the Chief Land Commissioner, filed a revision petition before the Federal Land Commission, Islamabad. The Federal Land Commission upheld the order passed by the Chief Land Commission and dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner, hence this constitutional petition.
10. Learned counsel contended for the petitioner that the order, impugned herein is suffering from jurisdictional defect as the powers of review came to an end on 30-4-1975 by way of an amendment in the Rules known as West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959, therefore, the order passed by the respondents while exercising the suo motu powers of review is coram non judice and unsustainable in law. Next contended that Maj. Shamas-ud-Din Muhammad, predecessor- infinterest of the petitioners validly made a gift in favour of his wife namely Mst. Sardar Jehan Begum and the same was also given effect in the Revenue Record by the concerned Revenue Authorities while entering Mutation No,736, dated 7-12-1958 so the same was immune from the scrutiny of the Land Reforms Authorities, therefore, the order to declare the aforesaid gift, void, is against the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgments reported as Muhammad Yousaf Khan v. The Chairman, Federal Land Commissioner and others 1988 SCMR 611, Munir Ahmed and 2 others v. Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Pakistan and another 1994 CLC 20, Federal Land Commission through its Chairman v. Hayat Muhammad Khan and others 1994 SCMR 1112 and Federal Land Commission v. Sardar Muhammad Aurangzeb Khan and 5 others 1997 SCMR 911. Also contended that the proceedings to exercise the suo motu powers were initiated on the application of a person having no locus standi to challenge the validity of the gift deed or the title of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also added to his argument that on the one hand, the Land Reforms Authority has held in the order, impugned herein that the tenant Messrs Ghulam Nabi etc. Had no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Chief Land Commission because the filing of a declaration is a matter between the Government and declarant, but on the other hand has exercised the suo motu powers and passed an order detrimental to the interest of the petitioners. Learned counsel also contended that till today, the land has not been resumed from the petitioners by the Land Commission, therefore, no fresh action can be taken by the Land Reforms Authority as ruled in Qazalbash Waqf and others v. Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and others PLD 1990 SC 99. As regards the limitation, the learned counsel submitted that the order has been passed regarding the gift mutation after the period of 40 years but no explanation has been given, therefore, all the proceedings concluded by the respondents are liable to be struck down on this score alone. Further contended that before taking the action against the petitioners, no notice has been given to the petitioners, therefore, the order is violative of the principle of audi alteram partem and not sustainable in law.
11. Conversely, the Assistant Advocate-General appeared on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by the petitioners. Learned Assistant Advocate-General contended that the Land Reforms Authority rightly exercised the suo motu revisional powers and declared the gift mutation void made by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners Maj. Shamas-ud-Din Muhammad in favour of his wife because the said declarant himself included the land of the said gift mutation in his declaration and further the said gift was made after the target date given by the law, therefore, no illegality or irregularity was committed by the respondent Land Reforms Authority. Also contended that the petitioners till today have not challenged the order of Deputy Land Commission, Bahawalpur passed in the year 1959 whereby on the basis of the declaration filed by the declarant Maj. Shamas-ud-Din Muhammad, deceased counted the area of gift mutation in the holding of Maj Shamas-ud-Din Muhammad and allowed him to retain the same within the permissible limits, therefore, the petitioners are otherwise estopped by his own conduct to challenge the order, impugned herein.
' As regard the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or the powers of review, learned Assistant Advocate-General submitted that the powers of review is to be exercised in accordance with the facts of the case and relied upon the judgments reported as Siraj Din v. Sultan and others PLD 1990 SC 95, Qazalbash Waqf and others v. Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and others PLD 1990 SC 99, The Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad and another v. Akhtar Abbas PLD 1989 SC 550, Falak Sher Khan and another v. Secretary to Government of Punjab Agriculture Department and others PLD 1989 SC 562, Syed Muzamil Shah and 27 others v. Deputy Land Commoner, Mansehra and 3 others PLD 2001 Pesh. 92 and Federation of Pakistan and others v. M. Nawaz Khokhar and others PLD 2000 SC 26.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
13. From the pleadings of the parties and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we found that following two questions need consideration and adjudication by this Court:- --
(i) The validity of the order, dated 24-6-1959 passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur whereby he determined the holding of the declarant including the area of gift Mutation No,736, dated 7-12-1959.
(ii) The suo motu exercise of power of review in the presence of an amendment in para.29 proviso 3rd of the Land Reforms Act, 1977.
' The provisions relating to the suo motu revisional powers/review provided in the land of Land Reforms are as under:--- ' Rule 12 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972:---
(a) By the aforesaid provisions, the remedy of review was provided by the Legislature and the powers were conferred on the specified officers of the Land Reforms Authority. This substantive remedy remain in the field till 30th of April, 1975 but thereafter the same was taken of from the statute by adding a new proviso by way of an amendment published on 10th of August, 1977.
(b) Para.29 of the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 (Martial Law Regulation 115)
' Para. 29 of the aforesaid regulations deals with the revisions, punishments and procedure. This para. Also confers powers of revision of any order on the Government or any person authorized by it in this behalf to call for record of any case or proceedings under the regulation which is pending or has been disposed of by the Authorities given in the aforesaid paras. The relevant proviso to the instant case are as under:---
29. Revisional powers of the Federal Government.--- The Government, or any person authorized by it in that behalf, may at any time, of its, or his own motion or otherwise, call for the record of any case or proceedings under this Regulation (or under the repealed Regulation) which is pending: ' Provided further that the record of any case or proceedings in which a Commission or other authority has passed an order shall not be called for under this paragraph by the Federal Government or the person authorized by it---
(a) of its or his own motion, after the (30th day of November, 1976), or
(b) on the application of any aggrieved person made after the expiration of sixty days from date of such order or from the enactment of the Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973, whichever is later, excluding the time requisite for obtaining a cop of such order."
' Although, the Legislature by amending proviso 3rd (a) has taken away the powers of review but in para.(b) of the aforesaid proviso, it is provided that an aggrieved person may file an application within the time stipulated therein to the revisional authority to revise any order.
' Section 24 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977:--- "The aforesaid section confers the powers on the Land Reforms Commission to review a case or a clause of cases decided by it before or after the commencement of this Act, if directed by the Federal Government."
14. In the instant case, the powers of review exercised by the Land Reforms Authority and finally it was confirmed by the. Land Reforms Commission. The Legislature while promulgating the Act of 1977 was conscious about the business supposed to be undertaken by the Land Reforms Authority to resume the access land from the big landowner, therefore, the powers of review was consciously incorporated or provided to correct or to review the orders passed before or after the commencement of the aforesaid Act to rectify the same or to dispense with the justice to the aggrieved person.
' Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 para.25(3)(b) Regulation 11 Review. Regulation 12 Revision: ' Through the aforesaid regulations, the powers of review and revision were given to the Land Reforms Authorities in certain cases.
15. The aforesaid provisions of law applicable to the instant case is sufficient to understand, that the powers of review and revision were provided in the statute to facilitate the aggrieved person particularly keeping in view the intention and scheme of the law. In the instant case, the Chief Land Commission while exercising the suo motu powers conferred upon him under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959 and para.32 of the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 declared the gift Mutation No,736 dated 7-12-1958 void and unlawful. Para.11 of the judgment, impugned herein is reproduced:--- "Para.32 of the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 has the effect of incorporating with certain modifications the provisions of Land Reforms Regulations, 1959 in Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 and making the Authorities under latter Regulation competent to deal with the matter uncontrolled by it as if the liabilities etc. Had been incurred under the Regulation, 1959.
' In the first place, clause (b) of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 32 preserves the obligation or liability accrued or incurred under Land Reforms Regulations of 1959 and the operative portion enjoins that any remedy may be instituted or enforced as if the Land Reforms Regulations of 1972 had not been made paragraph 32 has the effect of incorporating with certain modifications the provisions of the Land Reforms Regulations of 1959 in Land Reforms Regulations of 1972 and making the authorities under the latter Regulation competent to deal with the matter uncontrolled by it as if the liabilities etc. Had been incurred under the Regulation of 1959."
16. The aforesaid para. Confers the powers upon the Land Reforms Authority deal with the matter incurred under the Land Reforms Laws.
17. As regards the exercise of powers of review by the. Land Reforms Authority, we have been guided and enlightened by the judgment delivered by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan PLD 1990 SC 95 wherein while dealing with the suo motu exercise of powers of review. It is observed as under:--- PLD 1990 SC 95 "An interested person cannot claim as of right review of an order passed earlier if his application has become barred by time. However, when a statutory functionary is given power to review his own order or revise an order without any time limit that power can be equated with inherent power possessed by a Civil Court under section 151, C.P.C., or by a Criminal Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. To do complete justice or advance the cause of justice. Therefore, the Land Commissioner could review the order passed by him or his predecessor-inoffice at any time if illegality of the order was apparent on the face of the record and justice was done to the appellant irrespective of the fact that his application had been barred by time."
18. Although, by way of an amendment, the powers of review were taken off but the revisional powers are still existing in the statute. There is no cavil with the proposition that the revisional powers can be exercised on the application of an aggrieved person or by the revisional authorities suo motu even after the period stipulated in the law because of the fact, that it is supervisory jurisdiction which can be exercised to rectify the jurisdictional defect, illegality, irregularity, if committed while passing the order.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued the case on the strength of an amendment gazetted on 10th of August, 1977 whereby the Rule 12 of Punjab Land Reforms Rules was amended and the powers of review under the aforesaid Rules came to an end on 30th of April, 1975 but has not denied, that the declarant/predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners originally included the land allegedly mutated by way of gift by the declarant in favour of his wife Mst. Sardar Jehan Begum and the order passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner in the year 1959 on the said declaration, was not challenged before any forum, therefore, the effort to exclude the gift land from the declaration by way of an application is based on mala fides with the intention to deprive the State from the land which has been vested in the State by operation of law.
20. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment (supra) PLD 1990 SC 95 has dealt with this proposition and finally held that the revisional jurisdiction/powers for review can be exercised even after the time frame given in the law.
21. The learned counsel for the petitioner, even otherwise has failed to substantiate his argument by referring anything contrary to the record.
22. For the foregoing reasons, we are not convinced with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
23. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.