1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The petitioners (who are Legharis) are land owners of large tracts of land in D. G. Khan. The Chairman of the Federal Land Commission, who was a Minister in the previous Government, by his order dated 25-6-1973, directed the resumption of 4115 acres 13 kanals 25 marlas of land in exercise of the powers conferred by section 29 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115.
2. This order was challenged by a writ petition (W. P. No. 2411/75) in the Lahore High Court and a Division Bench of the said learned Court by a detailed and comprehensive order dismissed the same vide its order dated 20-9-1980. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. A large number of important questions of law arise from the very well written judgment of the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, inter alia
(i) whether a Minister in the Political Government, who was also the Chairman of the Federal Land Commission, could be considered as "biased" in law, if before delivering judgment in a case, which he had to decide in a quasi-judicial capacity, he had stated in his speeches that he will annihilate the `Legharis' and `Mazaris' and proceeded to resume 4115 acres 13 kanals 25 marlas of their land ?
4. In the case of Ashiq Muhammad Khan Mazari, etc. v. Federal Land Com--mission, Islamabad, etc. PLD 1977 Lah. 461 the order of resumption passed against the said Mazan Chief was declared to be void by another Judge of the same High Court inter alia on the ground that in the cir--cumstances noted above, the Chairman, Federal Land Commission could not but be considered to be biased.
5. However, in the instant case, the Division Bench held to the contrary. Leave to appeal has been granted by this Court against the judgment of the High Court in Ashiq Mazari's case (C. A. No. 121 of 1977) and the question involved in the present case is the same.
(ii) Whether the power exercised by the respondent as Chairman, Federal Land Commission was without jurisdiction on the ground that he could not act sitting singly in so far as the authorisation in the notification issued in that connection was in favour of "Chairman and Members" of the Federal Land Commission.
6. In Ashiq Muhammad Khan Mazari, etc. v. Chairman, Federal Land Commission, etc. PLD 1977 Lah.
7. 461; Mir Haji Ghulam Murtaza Talpur and others v. The Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad PLD 1970 Kar. 919 and Khair Muhammad v. Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad PLD 1979 Kar. 210, it was held that the Chairman sitting singly was not competent to exercise the power and jurisdiction conferred by paragraph 29 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115.
8. However, in the instant case, the learned Judges of the Division Bench have found that the word "and" should be read as "or" and, therefore, the Chairman could act singly. The above question on which the two Benches of the Lahore High Court have differed, needs to be resolved. The effect of validating Ordinance XXIX of 1978 also, for the same reason, requires to be considered.
(iii) In the present case, the Chairman, Federal Land Commission had acted in exercise of suo motu jurisdiction. The question arises whether be could properly and competently do so, because the power was exercised in pursuance of an application for revision moved on behalf of the tenants. It is submitted that they were not aggrieved persons in the eye of law and, therefore, the Chairman, Federal Land Commission was not competent to act on the basis of the application moved by the said tenants. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on Muhammad Aslam Khan and others v. Federal Land Commission through its Chairman, Central Secretariat and others PLD 1976 Pesh.
66. The learned Judges of the Division Bench have held that the exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction (even in this situation) was possible. There being different opinions in the High Court on this issue, the matter needs resolution.
9. These and some other questions arise in this case. Hence we would grant leave to appeal. Security in the sum of Rs. 2,500. Appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further docu--ments, if necessary.
10. This case will be heard along with Ashiq Muhammad Khan Mazari's case (C. A. No. 121 of 1977) and other connected matters. The possession of the petitioners, if they indeed are in possession, will not be disturbed, pending disposal of the appeal.