' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---This petition is filed against the order dated 20-4-2000 passed by learned Member FLC which has set aside the order dated 6-12-1999 passed by the Chief Land Commissioner Punjab. The learned Member FLC has concluded that the said order dated 6-12-1999 exceeded jurisdiction by entertaining a matter which had already been decided by a Member FLC on 7-2-1976 and had thereby attained finality. As a result, the impugned order dated 20-4-2000 has directed resumption of land belonging to the petitioner, a successor in interest of a vendee from the declarant Shaheena Shams, in terms of order dated 9-9-1979 passed by the DLC.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has explained that the order dated 7-2-1976 by learned Member FLC was passed in exercise of suo motu jurisdiction under para 29 of MLR No,115 of 1972. It is issued against a vendee of the declarant without summoning or hearing the vendee whereby the mutations of sale in favour of the vendee were set aside as being void. It is contended that in doing so, the learned Member FLC had ignored the contents of an earlier order dated 23-5-1974 passed by Addl: Chief Land Commissioner holding the same mutations of sale to be valid.
3. The order dated 7-2-1976 by the Member FLC was carried into effect through a resumption order passed on 9-9-1979 by the DLC ordering resumption of land belonging to the declarant, including the land which had been sold to the vendee. The resumption order was, however, not implemented in the revenue record for 19 years until 24-9-1998 when resumption Mutation No,349 is recorded.
Thereafter on 13-2-1999 a number of persons were allotted plots in the resumed land. The petitioner appealed the order of resumption dated 9-9-1979 before the Land Commissioner who dismissed the appeal as being time barred on 14-6-1999. The Chief Land Commissioner, however, accepted the petitioner's revision petition against the appellate order on 6-12-1999 and has remanded the matter to the DLC for making a fresh resumption order in the light of the order dated 7-2-1976 of Member FLC after giving the declarant an opportunity to choose the land liable to resumption. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that the said order by the Chief Land Commissioner has followed and not disregarded the ex parte order dated 7-2-1976 passed by the Member FLC in suo motu jurisdiction whereby the mutations of sale by the declarant in favour of the petitioner's predecessor vendee had been declared void.
4. A perusal of the order dated 6-12-1999 by the Chief Land Commissioner shows that the primary ground for directing remand is the failure by the DLC on 9-9-1979 to enforce the statutory scheme under Para II of MLR No,115 of 1972 to obtain choice of a declarant about the land to be surrendered.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent allottees have defended the impugned order of 20-4- 2000 passed by the learned Member FLC on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi, firstly, because he is not a direct vendee from the declarant and secondly, because the transaction of his predecessor vendee was, declared illegal by the Member FLC on 7-2-1976 which order has not been challenged.
6. Learned counsel have been heard and record perused.
7. The objections by the respondents are untenable because the transaction in favour of the vendee of the declarant does not become illegal inter parts on account of an order made under MLR No,115 of 1972; it merely becomes inoperative for purposes of such legislation.
' Reference is made to Mst. Raj Bibi and others v. Addl: CLC (PLD 1975 Lahore 408(DB). Therefore, the petitioner as a successor in interest of the vendee has a live interest to defend. Secondly, the resumption order dated 9-9-1979 did not give the declarant a choice under para 11 of MLR 115 about the land to be surrendered for resumption. Apart from breaching the said statutory rule, that order also contravenes the Hon'ble Supreme Court law that an alienee of a declarant also has a legal right to oppose the surrender by a declarant of land transferred to such alienee. Refer Mst. Zuhra Khatoon and 8 others v. The Member Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi (1985 SCM R 312). The DLC's order dated 9-9-1979 is therefore wrong in another respect: as a successor in interest of the vendee, the petitioner has a valuable right to be heard for opposing the surrender of his land for resumption.
8. As far as the finality of ex parte order dated 7-2-1976 by the Member FLC is concerned, that need not be disturbed. In view of the principle laid down in Mst. Raj Bibi v. Addl.-CLC ibid, the said order operates to affect the size of the declarant's holding but not the validity of the sale mutation made by him to his vendee. Therefore the identity of the land to be surrendered for resumption cannot be fixed by the ex parte order dated 7-2-1976 by the Member FLC. Accordingly, the order dated 6-12- 1999 by the Chief Land Commissioner rests on the right premise. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in the following terms:- ' The order of the Member FLC dated 7-2-1976 shall remain intact but the order dated 9-9-1979 by the DLC is set aside. A fresh resumption order shall be passed by the DLC after giving notice to the declarant and her vendees or their successors in interest. The DLC shall decide which land of the declarant is liable to resumption after considering (a) the declarant's express choice of land to be surrendered; (b) factual objections to resumption of petitioner's land and to the vendee's claim as bona fide purchaser for value without notice; (c) the impact of the private sales made by the declarant prior to the target under MLR 115 of 1972.
8. The allottees of the resumed land and their successors-in-interest and such other parties who are affected by the resumption of land shall have a right to make submissions before the DLC in support of their respective interests. Petition allowed with no order as to costs.