1. ' ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.-The circumstances in which the present Petitions have been filed are that the petitioners had earlier filed similar petitions challenging the order passed by the Chairman/Member, Federal Land Commission against each of the Petitioners, on number of grounds including the ground that the Chairman/Member, Federal Land Commission, sitting singly, could not dispose of revision applications under A paragraph 29 of M.L.R.115. As the last said ground found favour with the D.B. In view of the several decisions earlier given on the point by this Court as well as by the Lahore High Court, the D.B. Allowed the Petitioners by its order dated 12 the September 1977, quashed the impugned orders and remanded the cases to the Federal Land Commission for deciding the revision applications tiled by the petitioners, according to law. The operative part of the order read as under :- "The cases will be remanded to the Federal Land Commission and the revision application which was pending and was actually disposed of by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, will now be disposed of by the Federal Land Commission in accordance with law."
2. ' An identical order was also passed by the same D.B. In the Constitution Petitions Nos. 595 and 596 of 1974. Tiled by other petitioners on the same facts and grounds.
3. Subsequently, Ordinance No, XXIX of 1978 (Land Reforms Regulation (Validation of Orders)
4. Ordinance, 1978) was promulgated validating retrospectively any order passed by the Chairman or by a Member Federal Land Commission under paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972, notwithstanding any order or decision of any Court. Pursuant to the said Ordinance, the concerned Deputy Land Commissioners. Sind. Issued notices to the petitioners in the present Petitions as well as to the petitioners in the aforesaid Petitions Nos. 595 and 596 of 1974 informing them that in view of the aforesaid amending Ordinance the previous orders passed by the Chairman/Member, Federal Land Commission sitting singly held the field and were to be implemented and called upon them to surrender the excess land after exercising their choice. Being aggrieved by such notices, the petitioners of the aforesaid petitions Nos. 596 and 596 of 1974 filed fresh petitions, being Const.
5. Petitions Nos. D-1377 and 1378 of 1978, in this Court challenging the notices on the main ground that, notwithstanding the aforesaid amending Ordinance, the Federal Land Commission was duty bound to implement the order of remand passed by the D.B. In earlier petitions and decide the revision applications on merits after considering all other grounds raised by the petitioners. These fresh petitions came up before another D.B. Of which one of us was a member. Their Lordships interpreting the order of remand by reference to the provisions of Order XLI, rules 23 and 25, C.P.C.
6. And number of the reported decisions by several High Courts took the view that remand of a case for disposal o merits meant the reopening of the entire case before the statutory functionaries of the Federal Land Commission who were under legal duty to decide the revision applications by adverting to the merits of the C case in accordance with law keeping in view the several other contentions raised in the petitions. The relevant observations made in the order dated 29th November, 1978 may be reproduced as under :- "On a consideration of this aspect of the case we are left in no doubt that the remand of a case for disposal on merits re-opens the entire case before the statutory functionaries and they are under no fetters. In cases when an appeal is remanded for determination of some issues to the lower Appellate Court, even then further action by such Court is not barred. In the present case, the entire matter had been remanded and the argument is available with greater force. It is in that context that a distinction needs to be drawn between the provisions of Order XLI, rule 23 and Order XLI, rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But in a case which is remitted with a direction for disposal the statutory functionary has full power and are under a duty to deal with the case on its merits."
7. ' The Dictionary meaning of the word "remand" is to send back a case or cause to the same Court out of which it came, for purpose of having some action on it there. Reference may be made to Black's Law Dictionary (IV Edition) at Page 1457.
8. "In the present case the Division Bench had ordered disposal of the case according to law and the plain meaning of the words is to decide it in a manner in consonance with the law i,e, by adverting to the merits of the case and in accordance with law. It cannot be overlooked that the petitioners had raised several contentions before the Division Bench.
9. ' As far as the question of Chairman, Federal Land Commission being a properly constituted authority under paragraph 29 of M. L. R. 115 is concerned the matter may perhaps rest as far as the functionaries of the Federal Land Commission are concerned. But, in so far as the case was remanded for disposal, the matter stands open for rehearing and redetermination of all the issues.
10. The High Court by its earlier order did not advert to any of the merits in the contentions raised in the petition. Clearly, therefore, it is the function of the authorities constituted under the Federal Land Commission to reconsider the matter on merits."
11. ' Thereafter, these petitions have come up for disposal before us today, and the ground taken by the Petitioners is the same as raised in the aforesaid Petitions Nos. 1377 and 1378 of 1978, viz. That in view of the order of remand made by the Division Bench in the previous petition filed by the Petitioners. The revision applications filed by the Petitioners under paragraph 29 of M. L. R. 115 had to be decided by the statutory functionaries of the Federal Land Commission afresh on merits, by considering all the other grounds raised in those petitions. As common question is involved in these petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment ' Mr. Shah Jamil Alam, learned Deputy Attorney-General as well as the other learned counsel for the respondents stated that in view of the observations made by the Division Bench interpreting the order of remand passed by the earlier Division Bench in previous petitions filed by the petitioners.
12. They. Out of respect to the Court, had no objection if these petitions are allowed by their consent and the impugned notices are quashed and the Federal Land Commission is directed to implement the order of remand in question and decide the revision applications accordingly.
13. ' We find that the stand taken by the learned Deputy Attorney-General and other learned counsel for the respondents is only proper. Indeed, the D.B. In its order dated 29th November 1978 passed in Constitution Petitions Nos. D-1377 and 1378 of 1978. Having interpreted as above the order of remand passed by an earlier Division Bench in the previous petitions filed by the petitioners. And respectfully as we do agree with the interpretation so put, there is hardly any scope left for the functionaries of the Federal Land Commission but to implement the order of remand passed by the Division Bench in the previous petitions filed by the petitioners, by deciding afresh, on merits, the revision applications filed by the petitioners after considering all other grounds raised by the petitioners notwithstanding the amending Ordinance XXIX of 1978, for, 'lack of jurisdiction in the Chairman/ Member Federal Land Commission in deciding the matter sitting singly was, indeed, only one of the several grounds urged by the petitioners in those previous petitions.
14. ' Accordingly, we allow these petitions, declare the notices issued to the petitioners in these petitions to be void and quash them and direct the Federal Land Commission to implement accordingly the order of remand passed by the Division Bench while allowing the petitions previously filed by the petitioners. In the circumstances, the parties will bear their own costs.