AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. Through this writ petition the petitioners claiming to be the legal heirs of declarant Khuda Bakhsh have challenged the order dated 27.01.2012 passed by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad allotting the land in favour of respondents being residents of the village/adjoining areas of the District.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly argued that the matter of petitioners was a pending case and not a past and closed transaction, therefore, in the light of pronouncement of august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "QAZALBASH WAQF and others versus CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others"
(PLD 1990 Supreme Court 99) no new resumption order could have been passed and therefore the allotment order is against the law. The basis for this argument is that with regard to holding of Khuda Bakhsh declarant predecessor of petitioners the orders of resumption dated 02.10.1978 and 30.06.1979 were passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Mianwali. On the scrutiny of the land of declarant Khuda Bakhsh by the Head of Inspection Team, Federal Land Commission, Lahore through inspection note dated 31.03.1980 the matter for redetermination of holding of Khuda Bakhsh was taken up by the Land Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and vide order dated 26.08.1984 it was held that: "In the light of the advice of the Inspection Officer of the Federal Land Commission , dated 31.3.1980 read with the statement of Karam Hussain elder son of the declarant, the case is remanded to the Deputy Land Commissioner , Bhakkar with the direction that he may revise the orders dated 2.10.1978 and 30.6.1979 of the Deputy Land Commissioner Mianwali. He may also proceed against the declarant for not filing the declaration form under MLR- 115 of 1972 and resume the excess area after getting the choice from the heirs of the declarant. Karam Hussain elder son of the declarant who is present is being directed to appear before the Deputy Land Commissioner , Bhakkar on 16.9.1984."
In this view, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that after that Deputy Land Commissioner has never decided the matter and as per learned counsel the previous orders passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner dated 2.10.1978 and 30.06.1979 were set-aside, therefore, it was a pending case and as such no resumption orders could have been passed after 23.03.1990 in the light of case law referred supra.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argues that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are absolutely against the record and misconceived. The scrutiny committee was of the view that further land of the declarant is resume able, the detail of which was given in Annexure-IV of the Note of Head of Inspection Team, Federal Land Commission, Lahore and further the orders passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner dated 02.10.1978 and 30.06.1979 were never set-aside but for further resumption the Land Commissioner observed that Deputy Land Commissioner may review the order . Further that it was a past and closed transaction and resumption orders passed by the Deputy Land Commissio ner were final, therefore, rightly allotted by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission in favour of respondents. Lastly argued that if there was any right in the property , that was with the province of Punjab and province of Punjab has never disputed the allotment in favour of respondents.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and also gone through the record minutely with their able assistance.
5. Since a limited question is before us, therefore, we answer only that question through our view. The orders dated 02.10.1978 and 30.6.1979 passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner to the extent of resumption done through said orders were final. The Head of Inspection Team while scrutinizing the land of declarant Khuda Bakhsh observed that further land is resume able and the matter was taken up by the Land Commissioner , who in its order dated 26.8.1984 has observed that the Deputy Land Commissioner may review the orders. Neither the Land Commissioner set-aside the orders passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner nor he was competent to do so.
There are only observations in the order of Land Commissioner dated 26.8.1984 for review . Even the Land Commissioner was not competent to grant permission of review , rather the permission under Rule 12 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules of 1972 was required from the Additional Chief Land Commissioner or the Chief Land Commissioner and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the matter was reopened by the order of Land Commissioner dated 26.8.1984, therefore, reliance of learned counsel for the petitioners upon the judgment of QAZALBASH TRUST case by stating that no land was to be resumed after 23.3.1990 of the declarant Khuda Bakhsh is absolutely misconceived and not tenable, as after passing of order dated 26.8.1984 the petitioners even remained silent as this order was not in their favour rather against their rights as further land was to be resumed, first time through the instant writ petition which was filed in the year 2014 they want to take benefit of order dated 26.08.1984, that too, by misinterpreting the said order according to their own version.
6. We are fortified by our view that it was a close and past transaction. Light can be taken from the judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "MUHAMMAD SAFDAR and others versus PUNJAB LAND COMMISSION through Secretary and others" (2012 SCMR 1725 ). We have further observed that the resumed land vests in the provincial government, therefore, in the light of judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "SHAH JEHAN KHAN ABBASI versus DEPUTY LAND COMMISSIONER, BAHA WALPUR and another" (2006 SCMR 771) it is the provincial government which can agitate against the order impugned through this writ petition.
7. Though we are not fully satisfied with the powers of Chief Land Commissioner directly entertaining the application for allotment of land to the tenant or the persons eligible for allotment under the Land Reforms Regulation or Land Reforms Act but the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the allotment in favour of respondents. It will be the provincial government or the other claimant or contestant of right of allotment with the respondents to challenge that order . We make it clear that if the provincial government or any person claiming a right of allotment challenges the order of allotment in favour of respondents passed by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad dated 27.01.2012, this order will not be hurdle in the way .
8. The resume of above discussion is that the instant writ petition being not competent stands dismissed.