GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.-The petitioner challenges the order dated 16th September, 1976, passed by a Member of the Federal Land Commission under his suo motu revisional jurisdiction declaring as void the mutation No. 2940.
2. The facts briefly are that on the death of Lala, a brother of Manak Khan, 1/4 share was given to the petitioner and other 1/4 to Mst. Bahisht Bibi, as his widow. The remaining 1/2 went to Manak Khan. On 25th June, 1966, a mutation of gift No. 2868 was attested by which the petitioner transferred her share to Manak Khan. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as this caused bickering in the family the petitioner requested Manak Khan to restore the land back to her. This was done vide Mutation No. 2940 dated 24th August, 1967. The petitioner then gifted the same land on the same date in favour of Khan Muhammad, etc. Her nephews, vide Mutation No. 2943.
3. On the enforcement of Land Reforms Regulation-l 15. Manak Khan submitted a declaration in which he also disclosed the above said mutations.
They were declared valid by the Land Commissioner vide his order dated 16th June, 1972. A review sought for was rejected on 23rd September, 1972. The Federal Land Commission then took up the matter suo motu as referred to above.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel on the basis of Ch. Abdul Aziz v. Deputy Land Commissioner (PLD 1975 Lah. 417) and Malik Muhammad Khan v. Chief Land Commissioner (PLD 1975 Lah. 316) that the petitioner had a right to be heard before the mutation transferring the land id her favour by way of gift was rejected. It is argued that it is she who has been affected by that order and not the declarant.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the case of Mst. Raj Bibi (PLD 1975 Lab. 408) to say that the proceedings before the Land Commission authorities are only meant for the determination of the declarant's entitlement and would not affect the transactions admitted by the declarant. He submitted that the declarant neither surrendered the land involved in this gift in his declaration nor did he deny the making of the gift, etc.
6. After hearing the learned counsel we find that this petition had been filed about 4 years after the impugned order had been passed. The explanation submitted by the petitioner that she received a notice about it only in 1980, cannot be considered as good. It is a case in which the declarant and the petitioner are close relations or members of the same family. We are, therefore, not prepared to accept that the petitioner had no knowledge of it earlier.
7. In any case the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order of the Federal Land Commission. This aspect of the case has been thoroughly considered in the case of Raj Bibi the relevant portion of which is as under :- --- . . . For example, in the present case the declarant had 13178 units of land to start with but she claims to have alienated 9067 units out of it. This alienation has been held to be void for the purposes of the Land Reforms Regulation with the result that she has been held liable to surrender 1178 units. But since she considers herself to be bound by the alienations made by her, she regards herself as the owner of only 4111 units. If, therefore, she chooses to surrender 1178 units out of 4111 units of land which according to her, still belongs to her, the purpose of the Regulation will be served and the alienations made by the declarant will remain intact. There Is no reason why in a case like this the alienations should be considered to be void for any purpose other than that of determining the extent of the declarant's holding on the relevant date. However, should the declarant choose to surrender excess units wholly or partly out of the land alienated by her, as it is permissible under the Regulation, the alienation will become void by operation of law to the extent of the surrendered land and to that extent the affected alienee may claim compensation from the alienor. But again there is no reason why the alienations in respect of the balance of the alienated land should be held to be void for all purposes. It is to be noted that this construction has the advantage of saving the persons not otherwise affected by the Regulation but involved in transactions hit by paragraph 7 (1) from unnecessary litigation without defeating the purpose of the Regulation in any manner . . . . . . . ."
8. In any case the persons to be affected are Khan Muhammad, etc. And not the present petitioner.
A similar aspect of the case bad been considered by a Peshawar Bench in Mst. Dilshad Begum v.
Member, Federal Land Commission (I). The other affected person is Manak Khan. As none of these contested this matter and as the petitioner had already divested herself of th4B property, this petition is not maintainable on that score also.
For the reasons given above, we find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their own costs.