AJMAL MIAN, J.-This petition is directed against the order dated 18-3-1976, passed by the Chief Land Commissioner, Sind.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are, that petitioner No. 1 inter alia in the year 1969 gifted agricultural land, measuring 60 acres in favour of petitioner No. 3, namely, Miss Talat. In the same year, he also gifted agricultural land, measuring 91-6 acres in favour of petitioner No. 2 Mst. Jannat. Both the above gifted lands were situated, in Taluka Jemsabad, District Tharparkar. The above gifts were reflected in the Revenue Record dated 2-6-1969. Upon the promulgation of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR-115) petitioner No. 1 filed requisite declaration under para. 12. It seems that the Land Commissioner; Sind by his order dated 18-6-1972 found the above alienations in order and accepted the same. It further seems that the Member of Federal Land Commission raised an objection to the effect that the statement of acceptance of the above two donees were not on the Revenue Record, and, therefore, the case should be re-examined by the Sind Land Commission under its suo motu revisional power. It also seems that in pursuance of the above objection, the Land Commission Sind passed an order dated 30-1-197 4, declaring the above alienations as void. Against the above order petitioner No. 1 filed appeal before the Chief Land Commissioner, Sind, which was accepted by an order dated 8-4-1974 and the case was remanded back to the Sind Land Commissioner, for rehearing. Upon the receipt of the case on remand, the Land Commissioner Sind, again examined the record and by an order dated 8-5-1974, declared the above gifts as bona fide and also found as a matter of fact that in furtherance of the above gifts, the two donees had received the possession of the Land and were in possession thereof. It further seems that the Chief Land Commissioner, Sind, in purported exercise of suo motu revisional power by his order dated $-3-1976 set aside the aforesaid order of the Sind Land Commissioner dated 8-5-1974 and declared the above alienations/ gifts as void. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition.
3. (a) In support of the above petition, Mr. Imam Ali Kazi, learned Counsel for the petitioners has made the following submissions
(i) That the Chief Land Commissioner, Sind was not competent in law to review the order of Sind Land Commissioner as both were acting as the delegatees of the Sind Land Commission, having concurrent powers ;
(ii) That in any case the above two gifts were valid in accordance with Muslim Law notwithstanding that the statement of acceptance of the two donees were not on the record of the Revenue Authorities.
(b) In support of his first contention Mr. Imam Ali Kazi has referred to para. 2 (1) (iv) & (v) of the M. L.
R.
115. It may be observed that para. 2(i) defines Commission means a Land Commission constituted under paragraph 4, whereas paragraph 4 provides that for carrying out the purposes of the Regulation Commission shall be constituted for each Provincial Commission known as Land Commission of the Province concerned consisting of Chief Minister of that Province, who shall be its Chairman and not more than three Members to be appointed by the Chief Commissioner.
Furthermore, paragraph 5 of the M. L. R. Contemplates delegation of powers by providing that a Commission may by Notification in the official Gazette direct the power exercisable by it under the Regulation may, subject to such conditions, pro--vision as to appeal, revision or review, if any as may be specified in the Notification, be exercised also by any of its Member or Officer or Authorities subordinate to it. It seems that in furtherance of paragraph 5 of the M.L. R. a Notification bearing No. SLC-1/72/7 delegating the power in respect of the matters contained therein was issued. For the purpose of the case, it will suffice to reproduce hereinbelow Item 1 of the above Notification, which reads as follows "No. SLC-1/72/7.--In exercise of the powers vested under paragraph 5 of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (Martial Law Regulation 115), the Sind Land Commission is pleased to delegate to the following Officers, the powers mentioned against each :-- Power Authority to whom delegated
1. Powers to decide whether any transfer etc., is or is not void, vesting in the Sind Land Commission under paragraph 7 of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M. L. R. 115).Chief Land Commissioner, Sind, and Land Commissioner, Sind, only.
From the above-quoted item of the Notification, it is evident that the Chief Land Commissioner, Sind and Land Commissioner, Sind were delegated concurrent powers and, therefore it follows that one of the delegatees exercises the power delegated to him, the other delegatee not being superior as a delegatee could not have exercised the same second time. Mr. Imam Ali Kazi, learned counsel for the Petitioners in support of his above contention has also referred to the case of Ghulamullah Suah and 3 others v. D. S. D., Federal Land Commission (PLD 1980 Kar. 122) and the case of West Pakistan Land Commission Lahore and 2 others v. Fatehullah and others (PLD 1971 SC 393).
(i) In the first case a Division Bench of this Court in a case having identical facts upon construing paragraph 5 of M. L. R. Held that the Additional Chief Commissioner could not in exercise of his ordinary power of suo motu revision interfere with the orders passed by the Sind Land Commissioner as he did not enjoy a superior position than that of the Sind Land Commissioner but was a co-equal delegatee of the powers.Similar view found favour with the Supreme Court, while construing paragraph 5 of the C: M. L. A. Regulation No. 64 of 1959. The above two cases are directly on all force applicable to the instant case, and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
4. With reference to the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that even otherwise the two gifts in question were valid under Muslim Law. It will suffice to observe that the above point by now has been settled by the various rulings given by this Court and the other Courts. In this behalf it will be pertinent to refer to the case of Mir Hay All Ahmad Talpur and others v. Government of Sind and 2 others (PLD 1976 Kar. 316) and also the aforesaid cited case in PLD 1980 Kar.
122. In the above Karachi case it was held that notwithstanding the statement of the donee's acceptance was not on the Revenue Record the gift being in accord with Muslim Law was valid. The above case has been followed by another Division Bench of this Court in the above case reported in PLD 1980 Kar. 122.
5. Additionally, in view of second proviso to para. 7 (i) (b) of the M. L. R. The bona fide of a gift in favour of any legal heir specified in explanation to the aforesaid para. Cannot be questioned, which includes daughters. In this regard reference may be made to the case of Haya It Muhammad v.
Member, Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi (PLD 1974 Lah. 456). The above case has been followed recently by Division Bench of this Court in the cases which have not yet been reported.
6. For the foregoing reasons the petition ,is allowed and impugned order dated 8-3-1975 is declared as being without lawful authority and the respondent is restrained from acting or taking any action in furtherance of the above order. However, in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.