' Gul MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.-The petitioners challenge the order dated 19th of December, 1973 passed by the Federal Land Commission. He upheld the orders passed by the Lower Authorities to the effect that the land gifted to petitioners 2 and 3 in 1963 was also to be taken into consideration under para. 10 of the Land Reforms Regulation 115.
2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that an area measuring 437 kanals situate in village Muhammadpur Gumwala was purchased by Ghulam Ahmad a brother of petitioner No. 1 on 31st October, 1954. Ghulam Ahmad who was issueless gifted the said land to petitioners 2 and 3 who are sons of petitioner No. 1 on 22nd March, 1963. In 1965, the petitioners 2 and 3 got their land exchanged with the land of their maternal uncle in village Rajjanpur I and Rajjanpur II vide the following mutations :-
(i) No, 364 dated 24-8-1965, village Muhammadpur Gumwala.
(ii) No, 300 dated 24-8-1965, village Rajjanpur I. (iii) No, 886 dated 13-10-1967, village Rajjanpur
3. On the promulgation of Land Reforms Regulation 115, the petitioner No. 1 filed a declaration. He also mentioned the gift referred to above made by Ghulam Ahmad in favour of his two sons. The Deputy Land Commissioner vide Order dated 28th of May, 1972, treated the gift to fall under para. 10 of the Land Reforms Regulations and resumed his excess land. An appeal by the petitioners failed on 29th June, 1972 before the Land Commission. A revision petition was also rejected on 25th April, 1973 by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner. The Federal Land Commission too did not grant any relief as referred to above.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel that as Ghulam Ahmad had purchased the land in dispute on 31st October, 1954, the same could not be a subject-matter of scrutiny under para. 10 as the target date therein is 1st of January, 1959. He further stated that no finding has been given by any of the lower authorities that the petitioner bad purchased the land in dispute in the year 1954, benami in the name of Ghulam Ahmad or for petitioners 2 and 3.
6. The learned counsel for the State submitted that as the acquisition in the name of petitioner's sons by any means could be taken into considerations under para. 10 the orders passed by the lower authorities are perfectly valid. He referred to para. 4 of the order of the Federal Land Commission in support.
7. Para. 10 of the Regulation reads as under :- "Acquisition of land by Government servants.-(1) No person who is or has been in the civil service of Pakistan and has at any time between the first January, 1959, and two years of his ceasing to be in civil service acquired any land or any right or interest therein, by any means whatever, either in his own name or in the name of any of his heirs or any other person, shall own or possess any land exceeding one hundred acres : ' Provided that subject to the other provisions of this Regulation, any such person may, in addition to one hundred acres of land, own or possess any land which has devolved on him by inheritance or any other land, not exceeding the area of the land so inherited, which has been acquired by him, in lieu of the land so inherited, whether by exchange or sale, either in his own name or in the name of any other person.
(2) Where any person (to whom the provisions of sub-paragraph (1) apply) has, within the period specified therein, transferred in favour of any of his heirs or has acquired in the name of any of them any land, and such land continues to be owned or possessed by his heirs, he shall for the purposes of that sub-paragraph be deemed to be the owner of such land.
8. A perusal of the above does clearly show that the acquisition should be by a declarant though it may stand in the name of his sons. Consequently the finding had to be given by the respondent authorities that it was in fact an acquisition by the petitioner No. 1 though the sale was shown in the name of Ghulam Ahmad, who subsequently gifted it to petitioners 2 and 3.
9. As there is no such finding and as even the purchase was made about 5 years before the target date, we are not in a position to maintain the impugned orders. They are, therefore, declared to be without any lawful authority and of no legal effect. We, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs.