AJMAL MIAN, J.-By this common judgment we intend to dispose of the above two petitions as they involve common questions of law The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petitions are as under :- Petition No. 789/1976 Petitioner No. 1 owned agricultural land situated, at the places mentioned in para. I of the petition. It seems that he by way of gift alienated 184 acres and 9 Ghuntas out of the aforesaid land to his legal heirs namely petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 (sons) and petitioner No. 4, his were; on 4th August, 1971.
Mutation in the revenue record was effected on the same date as is reflected from the documents on record. It further seems that after the enforcement of Martial. Law Regulation 115 (hereinafter referred to as M. L. R.) the petitioners filed a declaration disclosing the above gifts, which declaration was accepted by the Land Commissioner Sind, Hyderabad, by his order dated 24th July, 1972 (Anx. `B' to the petition) and also by the Deputy Land Commissioner Hyderabad by his order dated 21st August, 1972 on the basis of the above: Land Commissioner's order (Anx. `A' to the petition). It appears that the Officer on Special Duty (Joint Secretary), Land Commission, issued notice to the petitioner under his suo motu revisional power under paragraph 29 of the M. L. R. And initiated the proceeding. In consequence thereof, he passed the impugned order dated 4th August, 1976 holding that the, gifts were not valid for want of registration as required under section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioners being aggrieved by the above order have filed the present petition.
Petition No. 790/1976 One late Uttoomal son of Khemchand, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 owned agricultural land situated at the places mentioned in para. 1 of the petition. It seems that on 4thl October, 1971 and 23rd November, 1971 Late Uttoomal alienated by way of gifts in favour of the petitioners agricultural land, measuring 38 acres and 2J Ghuntas, situated in Deh Sattari and Jarki. The entries in the record-of-rights in favour of the petitioners were effected on 4th October 1971, and 23rd November, 1971 respectively. It further seems that upon promulgation of M. L. R. 115 late Uttoomal filed the requisite declaration which was accepted by the Land Commissioner Sind, Hyderabad, by his order dated 30th June, 1972 (Anx. `C' to the petition). The above gifts were also accepted by the Deputy Land Commissioner Sind by his order dated 29th August, 1972, while determining the total holding of late Uttoomal (Anx. 'D' to the petition). However, it seems that in the year 1976 the Officer on Special Duty/Joint Secretary. Federal Land Commission under paragraph 29 of the M. L. R. While exercising suo motu revisional power issued notice to the petitioners and in consequence thereof passed the impugned order dated 6th ,August, 1976, about which according to the petitioners they had come to know on Ist September 1976. In this impugned order also the above gifts were declared invalid on the same ground which found favour with the Officer on Special Duty in the above connected petition. The petitioners being aggrieved by the above order have filed the present petition.
2. In support of the above petition Mr. Hussain Adil Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioners, has urged the following points :--
(i) That respondent No. 1. i.e. O. S. D:,/Joint Secretary erred in holding that the above gifts were invalid for want of registration in terms of section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act.
(ii) That in any case in view of para. 7 (b) explanation (i) to the M. L. R. Bona fide of the above gifts could not have been inquired into as the gifts were in favour of the legal heirs.
3. With reference to the first contention, Mr. Hussain Adil Khatri has referred to the case of Limo Khan and another v. Member, Federal Land Commission and 3 others (PLD 1981 Kar. 114) and the case of Sachunand and another v. O. S. D., Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi and 2 others (PLD 1981 Kar. 393). He has also referred to the two unreported judgments both dated 3rd February, 1981 in Const. Petitions Nos. 293/1976 and 294/1976 by a D. B. Of this Court, to which one of us was a party (Ajmal Mian), in which inter alia the above Karachi cases were followed. It may be pertinent to observe that in the case of Choudhry Atta Mohammad and 10 others v. Federal Land Commission (1979 CLC 294), it was held by a D. B. Of the Lahore High Court that "while construing the word transfer in the M. L. R. It was necessary that the purpose and the spirit of the Land Reforms Regulation should have been kept in view. It must be noted that this Regulation has not been enacted to regulate the transfers of immovable property from one party to another. Therefore it was wrong to have given the meaning to the expression "transfer which under the law governing transfers of property, it normally certifies". The above Lahore case has been followed in the above Karachi cases. It is by now "well-settled principle of law that non. Registration of a gift deed simplicter for the purpose of M. L. R. Will not be void if otherwise bona fide. In this view of the matter the impugned orders cannot be sustained.
4. Referring to the second contention, namely, that since the gifts were in favour of the legal heirs the bona fide could not have been gone into by respondent No. 1 it will suffice to observe that para. 7 (b) explanation (i) clearly provides that nothing contained in the M. L. R. Shall apply to any transfer of land or creation of any right of interest in or encumb--rances on any land by way of gift or otherwise made by a person in favour of his heir. This provision has been the subject-matter of inter--pretation, inter alia, in the above unreported judgment dated 3rd February, 1981, given in Const. Petition No. 293/1976. We do not see any compelling reason not to follow the above view.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, both the petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The respondents are restrained from acting upon the same.
There will be no order as to costs.