ABAID NLLAH KHAN, J..-This petition under Article 199 of the Constitu--tion impugns the validity of the order of the Chairman of the Federal Land Commission, dated, the 7th September, 1976, in so far as it, declares the sales of land, whose particulars are set out in the following tabulated statement, purported to have been effected by Kist. Sanam Iqbal, petitioner 1, in favour of different persons, to have taken place in violation of the provisions of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (Martial Law Regulation 115), and to be void.- S. No.Area of land SoldSale considerationVillage where the Land is situatedNumber of mutation of sale.Date of attestation of mutationAlienee 1.50 arces 7 marlas14,000 Abwal 78 25-9-1969Mst. Tehmina Begum 2.130 arces 5 kanals 2 marlas44,800 Mathial 41 25-10-1970 Ghulam Ali 3.181 arces 4 kanals 19 marlas30,000 Abwal 81 25-10-1970Mst. Saira Azmat 4.121 arces 7 kanals53,000 Khunda 1389 25-10-1970 Mst. Naseem Sultana 7 marlas 5.156 arces 7 marlas24,000 Pattarian 157 25-10-1970 Zulfiqar 6.43 arces 6 kanals 4 marlas15,000 Nathial 48 25-10-1970Mumtaz Hussain 7.114 arces 5 kanals 8 marlas17,500 Dhok Kala 132 25-10-1970Mst. Tasnim Sultana
2. Petitioner 1 was minor, aged about 14 years and 3 months, when the first mutation of sale was sanctioned and was about 15 years and 4 months old when the other mutations of sales were attested. Pursuant to the provisions of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, she filed a declara--tion in respect of the above transfers of sale and the Land Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, declared the transactions valid. Subsequently, on applications filed by private persons with the Federal Land Commission on the 6th January, 1976, and on the basis of the report of the Federal Land Commission Inspection Team, the Chairman of the Commission, in exercise of suo motu powers of revisional jurisdiction under para. 29 of the Regulation declared the transactions of sales to be void.
He found that petitioner 1 suffered from minority when the sales in question were said to have been brought about and as such alienations were void ab initio. She was still minor on the 19th.
December, 1971:, and therefore, she could not have ratified the transactions. According to him any action on her part towards ratification after the target date of the 19th December, set by para. 7(l)
(a) of the Regulation, would be void. He noticed that no change of possession of the lands sold had taken place, that the consideration was not adequate and that the so-called transferees belonged to the same group of persons in whose favour other members of the petitioners' family had made a number of transfers. As the perusal of his judgment discloses, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing before him could not rebut these allegations which were listed in the inspection Team's report which had been supplied to petitioner 1 when notice had been issued to her by the Commission. The learned counsel could not justify before the Commission as to how the vendees had been able to advance such huge amounts of sales prices on the same occasion. He viewed the transactions to be benami just to evade the effects of the Regulation and not conforming to the requirements of valid transfers. Therefore, he set aside the validation orders passed by the Land Commissioner and declared the transfers to be void.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the first instance tried to complain against inadequacy of opportunity offered to petitioner 1 by the Chairman of the Commission to defend herself inasmuch as she had not been apprised of the reasons for which the transactions of sales in dispute were proposed to be declared void which reasons according to him it was the duty of the Commission to have notified to her before hearing the case in revision. However, when his attention was drawn to the fact that a copy of the Inspection Team's report setting out reasons for declaring the tran--sactions to be void had been supplied to petitioner 1 alongwith the notice served upon her and that her counsel had inspected the file of the case before addressing arguments before the Chairman of the Commission, he did not press these points further.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as complaints of private persons against the alienations in dispute reached the Federal Land Commission after the expiry of 60 days of passing of the order by the Land Commissioner validating the transactions the Commission could not, on the basis of the rule laid down in Muhammad Aslam Khan v. Federal Land Commission (P L D 1976 Pesh. 67) exercise it revisional jurisdiction. In the instant case the Commission exercised revisional jurisdiction suo mot-u on the information received from private persons' petitions complaining against the alienations to the Commission as also from the Inspection Team's report.
The Commis--sion cannot exercise suo motu revisional powers unless it has some information regarding a particular alienation which it wishes to examine. Such infor--mation may be coming forth from the Inspection Team or any other source. There was nothing wrong with the Commission's exercise of revisional powers on the Information received by it through private complaints and the report of the Inspection Team. We have already held in our judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 2411 of 1975 (NLR 1981 Rev. 31) that the Commission could very well exercise suo motu revisional powers in this fashion.
5. Again the learned counsel maintained that petitioner l had attained puberty when the sales of her landed property took place and that she was competent to effect sales. The contention of the learned counsel cannot prevail because for the purpose of entering into and finalizing a contract of sale the age of majority, as fixed by section 3 of the Majority Act, 1875, is 18 years and not the one at which one attains puberty. As she continued to suffer from the defect of minority till the target date of 19th December, 1971 she could not ratify the sales. Referring to what has been observed in Nihalchand Mewaram v. Mir Jan Mahomed Khan (AIR 1937 Sind 310) and Ashrqf Alt v. Etim Ali (PLD 1959 Dacca 625), the learned counsel for the petitioners urged that Mst. Sanam Iqbal, even though a minor, could finalise valid contracts of sales in dispute. How--ever, the precedent cases, with peculiar facts of their own, laid down some--what different propositions. In Nihalchand Alewaram's case a contract of lease was entered into on behalf of a minor who after attaining majority carried on the transaction commenced by him during his minority and brought a suit to enforce the lease and for recovery of arrears of rent. It was held that he was competent to bring suit to enforce the lease. It was observed that though a contract by a minor was void and not voidable, it was quite competent for a person emerging from a state of disability to take up and carry on a transaction commenced while he had remained under disability in such a way as to bind himself to the whole, in Ashraf Ali's case the rule laid down -was that if in executed contract the minor's part had been performed and nothing was left to be executed by the minor, that is, no obligation was left to be discharged by and to be enforced against him, such a contract was enforceable by him as it was for his benefit. The difficulty in the instant case arises from the fact Mst. Sanam Iqbal continued to be minor till the 19th December, 1971, and as such could not ratify the sales.
6. On attestation of mutations the entries , touching the galas would have naturally found their way into the jamabandi. Therefore, mere in corpo--rations of the transactions or their consequential effects in the jamabandi would not render them genuine if they are otherwise not so. There is no evidence of payment of such a huge amount of Rs.1,98,300 as consideration in respect of the sales in question. The alienees belong to the same group of persons who had been transferees of land in respect of other transactions effected by the members of the petitioners' family. Absence of change of actual possession also goes to cast doubt on the genuineness of sales. The Commission's finding, on the basis of the material before it, is not shown to be improper and perverse. Therefore, this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction would not interfere with it. The petition is without any force and is dismissed with costs.