1. ' ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.-The present petition has come to be filed in the circumstances that the Member, Federal Land Commission, in exercise of his powers of suo mow revision under paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, passed an order dated 9th January, 1975, whereby he set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad and the Chief Land Commissioner, Sind, and directed resumption of the petitioner's land in terms of the said order.
2. ' The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in 'Constitution Petition No, 448/76, on number of grounds, inclu ing the one that, inasmuch as, the order was passed by the Membe sitting singly, it was passed without jurisdiction and was, therefore, of no legal effect. As the last said ground alone found favour with the Division Bench hearing the said petition, the D. B. Allowed the petition by its order dated 13th September, 1977, quashed the impugned order and remanded the case to the Federal Land Commission for disposal in accordance with law. The order reads as under :- "The petitioners had filed a revision application before the Federal Land Commission, which was heard and disposed of by a Member of the Commission sitting singly. There have been a number of decisions by now that a Single Member of the Federal Land Commission was not competent to hear and dispose of the proceedings.
3. ' The impugned order, under the circumstances, would be of no legal effect, and is quashed. We will, therefore, remand the case to the Federal Land Commission for disposal of the revision application in accordance with law.- ' Thereafter, instead of the Federal Land Commission hearing the matter on remand as directed by the D. B., the petitioners were served with a notice dated 4th September. 1978, informing them that in view of the amending Ordinance XXIX of 1978, Land Reforms Regulation (Validation of Orders)
4. Ordinance, 1978, the previous order passed by the Member Federal Land Commission, sitting singly, held the field and was to be implemented and called upon them to exercise their choice for the purpose of resumption of the excess land. On receiving such notice, the petitioners have filed the present petition.
5. Mr. Nasir Aslam Zahid, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that after the Division Bench had allowed the petitioners' earlier Petition No, 448/1975, quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Federal Land Commission for deciding it according to law, the Federal Land Commission was duty bound to implement the order of remand by deciding the Revision on merits, afresh, after hearing the petitioners on all the grounds that were raised by them in that earlier petition, notwithstanding the passing of the amending Ordinance No XXIX of 1978, subsequently. For the lack of competency in the Member Federal Land Commission of passing the order while sitting singly was only one of the several grounds raised in that petition. In support, the learned counsel relied on the decided Petitions Nos. D-1377 and D-I378 of 1978, wherein the D. B.
6. While interpreting similar order of remand, as is under consideration in the present petition, held to the effect that remand of a case for disposal according to law meant the re-opening of the entire case before the statutory functionaries of the Federal Land Commission who were accordingly under legal duty to decide the revision by adverting to the merits of the case and re-hearing and rede-termining all the grounds raised in the petition, notwithstanding the subsequent Validating Ordinance No, XXIX of 1978, with the passing of which the matter may perhaps rest as far as only the question of the Member being a properly constituted authority under paragraph 29 of the Regulation was concerned. Learned counsel also referred to another decided Petition No, D-1223 of 1978 in which also similar order of remand was involved and this Bench following the above interpretation had remanded the matter to the Federal Land Commission for implementing the order of remand, with consent of the learned Deputy Attorney-General.
7. ' As the afore-cited decided petitions supported the learned counsel. In his contention, the learned Deputy Attorney-General made the same statement, as was made by him in the above-said Petition No, 1223/78, that in view of the interpretation put by the D. B. On the 'similar order of remand in Constitution Petitions Nos. D-1377 and 1378 of 1978, he, out of respect to the Court, had no objection if this petition is. Allowed by his consent and the impugned notice is quashed and the Federal Land Commission is directed to implement the order of remand passed in earlier Petition No, 448 of 1975, filed by the petitioners and decide the revision afresh, after hearing the parties on all the grounds raised in that petition, including on the effect of the Validating Ordinance No, XXIX of 1978, passed subsequently.
8. Following the view taken in the above-mentioned decided petitions and considering the statement rightly made by the learned Deputy Attorney-General, we allow this petition, declare impugned notice to be without lawful authority and direct the Federal Land Commission to implement the order of remand passed by the D. B. In the earlier petition No, 448 of 1975 filed by the petitioners by deciding the revision, afresh after hearing the parties on all the grounds raised in the said earlier petition, including on the effect of Ordinance No, XXIX of 1978, Land Reforms Regulation (Validation of Orders) Ordinance, 1978, passed subsequently. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.