' AJMAL. MIAN J-This petition is directed against the order dated 26th November, 1980 passed by the Member, Federal Land Commission, invalidating the two alienations made by petitioner No, 1 in favour of her two daughters, petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, in respect of land, situated in deh 39 Jamrao, Taluka Sanjoro, District Sanghar. Respondent No, 1 has invalidated the above alienation for the reasons recorded by him in para. 4, which reads as follows :- "4. Inspection Team Federal Land Commission has examined all the alienations. It is not raising any objection to the alienations made by the declarant in the Punjab Province which have already been validated by Land Commissioner Sargodha. But it has raised objection in respect of the 2 alienation which were made by the declarant in favour of her heirs in Deh 39 Jamrao, Taluka Sanjaro District Sanghar. According to the contention of the Inspection team these entries have been ante-dated. The alienations have been entered in book of statement in a left over space on page No, 50 on the first half of which a different statement has been entered and then cancelled out. Secondly when this statement was transferred to village form VII the mutation number is not serialised in proper sequence. It has been entered against serial No, 147-A following the entry of mutation at serial No, 147 on the same page. According to the Inspection team both the statement as well as the mutation have been squeezed in the left over spaces to conceal its ante-dating..
That the entry in both of the statements is ante-dated is conclusively established by the fact that the gift statement dated presumably 26th January, 1968 is squeezed in between the entries which are dated 24th January, 1968 and 19th January, 1968 with the latter following the impugned entry.
The counsel for the declarant maintained that book of statement is replete with entries dated in improper sequence. On the ' examination of the book of statement it was found that the book was divided into several parts ; each part reserved for a separate, deh in the Tappa, which explains the counsel's contention. Secondly the counsel contended that the expediency of resorting to serial No, 147-A, in form VII-A is not confined to this number alone but there are other entries as well where has been suffixed to an entry. The Head of inspection Team established that in other cases where A was affixed to a mutation entry both the original as well as inheritance transactions. There is no such connection between entry Nos. 147 and 147-A. Therefore, I have no doubt left in my mind that the two impugned alienations to the heirs were entered after the D date as contended by the Inspection Team and as such I do not hold them valid for the purpose of MLR 115. The Deputy Land Commissioner Sanghar is hereby ordered to include the area involved in the two alienations in the holding of the declarant and resume the area in excess of the prescribed ceiling after allowing her the option of selecting the land which she wants to retain/ surrender. Since the judgment was reserved the parties may be allowed accordingly.
(S. Imran Shah), Islamabad Member 26-11-1980 Federal Land Commission"
2. We are inclined to hold that the findings recorded by respondent No, 1 are based on surmises and conjectures on the basis of personal impression gathered from the Revenue record. We have also examined the original Revenue record in respect of the alienations in question and we are of the view that on the basis of the above revenue record, it could not have been conclusively concluded that the entries relating to the two alienations in question were manipulated. It would have been appropriate' for respondent No, 1 to record the evidence of the Revenue authorities after notice to the petitioners on the question whether the entries in question were in consonance with the practice obtaining in the revenue department in the district in question.
3. We, therefore, allow the petition and declare the order as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect and remand the case to respondent No, 1 with the direction to adjudicate upon the questions quoted in para. 4 of the impugned order by recording evidence in the light of the above observation. The petitioners may also be furnished to produce any evidence if they wish to tender.
This matter is to be adjudicated upon within two Months from the date of receipt of the notice of this order. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.