' A. V. AKHUND, J.-Petitioner, Mir Tariq Hussain, at the time of promulgation of the Law Reforms Regulation, 1972 [Martial Law Regulation 115] owned about 404.15 acres of land equivalent to 17,388 Produce Index Units. As per sub-paragraph (1) of para. 8 of the Martial Law Regulation 115, the petition could retain 12,000 produce index units. Under subparagraph (2) of paragraph 8 ibid, he could retain additional 2,000 produce index units, if he owned on 20th December, 1971, an agricultural tractor certified to be in good working order by an officer authorised by the Land Commission in this behalf. On 12-5-1972 the petitioner filed Form L. R. VII for retaining additional area of land on the basis of owning an agricultural tractor with a certificate dated 15-5-1972 from the Assistant Commissioner Mirpurkhas, that the petitioner owned a tractor on 6-7-1971 which was in working order. The Deputy Land Commissioner, Mirpurkhas, by order dated 21st May, 1973, allowed the petitioner to retain an area to the extent of 14,000 produce index units on the basis of the fact that he (the petitioner) owned an agricultural tractor as certified by the Assistant Commissioner Mirpurkhas. However, Member, Federal Land Commission in exercise of power under para. 29 of the Martial Law Regulation 115, called for the record of the case, and by an order dated 13-2-1976, held that the petitioner was not proved to own a tractor on 20-12-1971, and, consequently, not entitled to retain an additional area to the extent of 2,000 produce index units. It is this order, which is challenged in this Constitutional Petition, as being illegal, etc.
2. On 1-9-1980, we heard counsel for the petitioner and directed the petition to be dismissed for reasons to be recorded.
3. The reasons are :-
(i) The Member Federal Land Commission acted in purported exercise of the powers under paragraph 29 of the Martial Law Regulation 115, on his own motion in calling for the record of the petitioner' case from the Deputy Land Commissioner and passed an order h thought fit. This action of the Member is validated by section 2 of the Land Reforms Regulation (Validation of Orders)
Ordinance, 1978, promulgated on 25th June, 1978, which reads thus :- "Notwithstanding any order or decision of any Court, any order passed by the Chairman or by a Member of the Federal Land Commission at any time before the commencement of this Ordinance and purporting to be in exercise of the authority conferred on the Chairman and Members of the Commission by an order of the Federal Government under Paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, shall deemed to have been validly passed and shall have, and shall be deemed always to have had, effect accordingly."
(ii) He passed the impugned order after petitioner was afforded an opportunity of being heard ;
(iii) The reason advanced in the order that engine number given in the receipt does not tally with the number given in the insurance document, and, therefore, it was not possible to hold that petitioner was owner of the tractor, is quite cogent and worth relying upon ;
(iv) Tractor is included in the definition of "motor vehicle" given in clause (23) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965. Because it was to be necessarily driven beyond the field of the owner, it required registration under section 23 of the Ordinance, ibid. The contention that tractor was not liable to registration, is not tenable.
(v)There is no reliable proof that petitioner had owned the tractor on 20th December, 1971.
(vi) No malice on the part of the Member, Federal Land Commission is alleged.
(vii) The order is passed with lawful authority.