RASAAL HASAN SYED, J.----Petitioner in this Constitutional petition challenges order dated 11.6.2019 of respondent No.1, on the grounds of being illegal, mala fide and without jurisdiction. It claimed that petitioner Muhammad Yusaf and one Muhammad Akram, filed applications under paragraph 18(1) of MLR 1972, before the Federal Land Commission, for grant of land measuring 75 kanals 11 marlas, resumed from the declarant vide Mutation No. 483 dated 29.11.1993 in Mauza Kotla Sadaat, Tehsil and District Multan. Petitioner's application was allowed vide order dated 29.3.2019 of Member Federal Land Commission, whereby land in question was allotted in his favour whereas the application of Muhammad Akram was declined. In the order respondent No. 1 was directed to incorporate entries in Revenue record in the name of grantee and submit compliance report to Registrar Federal Land Commission. Petitioner was also directed to abide by Rule 9 of the Terms and Conditions for Grant of Land, 1973. Application dated 06.4.2019 for implementation of the order and for issuance of attested copy of mutation was filed before respondent No.1, which was statedly endorsed to respondent No.2 for report vide order dated 09.4.2019, who in response endorsed the application to respondent No. 3 for necessary action to implement the order. Report dated 15.4.2019 confirmed that land measuring 75 kanals 11 marlas was land of Federal Land Commission and that there was no stay order. Recommendation was made for appropriate orders. Despite report, respondent No.1 did not implement the order, instead kept the matter in abeyance; petitioner, therefore, filed W.P. No.8930/2019 which was disposed of vide Order dated 12.6.2019, whereby the case was sent back to respondent No.1 to dispose of the pending application expeditiously and in accordance with law. Petitioner claims that vide order dated 11.6.2019, respondent No.1 refused implementation of judicial order of his superior authority. In this backdrop the petitioner challenges order dated 11.6.2019 of respondent No. 1.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submitted that order passed by respondent No.1 was without lawful authority, respondent No.1 illegally ignored that letter dated 10.4.2009 was annulled by, judicial order of Chief Land Commission dated 07.5.2011 in case No.RP 1(976)FLC/2009 titled Abdul Rehman v. The State" and also letter from the office of Chief Land Commission based thereon wherein directions were given that in future the implementation report be sent to Registrar Federal Land Commission, Islamabad, for onward information to the Chairman, Federal Land Commission and in future the implementation be made according to the direction contained in the judicial order. It was argued that the impugned order was issued with extraneous motives and that respondent No.1 could not refuse implementation of order of his superior authority on judicial side and further that respondent No.1 did not have any power to declare the order on judicial side of his superior as without jurisdiction, particularly when it was not challenged further and had attained finality.
3. Perusal of order dated 29.3.2019 of Member Federal Land Commission reveals that the petitioner applied for allotment of land measuring 75 kanals 11 marlas under section 27 of Land Reforms Act, 1977 read with para 18(3) of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, which was resumed from the declarant vide mutation dated 29.11.1993. It is evident from the order of Member Federal Land Commission that some proceedings were pending before him which could not be continued due to filing of writ petition wherein status quo order was issued and, in result, the proceedings were held in abeyance till the decision of the writ petition. Later the writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 16.3.2017; the matter was taken to the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in CPLA No. 1697/2017 which was dismissed on 30.3.2018 wherein the earlier order of resumption remained intact. Consequently the proceedings pending before Member Federal Land Commission were restored. It is evident from the order that all concerned were heard; detailed discussion on different aspects of matter was made and points raised pro and contra were dealt with; whereupon the application of the petitioner was allowed. The questions relating to maintainability of application and jurisdiction of the Member Federal Land Commission were responded to in the order as under:- "10 ... Before touching the merits of the case, it is pertinent to mention that the question of jurisdiction FLC in such cases of allotment is very much solved by the provisions of Land Reforms Act, 1977. Section 27 of the said Act is triangular in nature of cases in which cognizance is required by FLC and is also supported by the case laws referred by the learned counsel for the parties. Section 27 of the Act read with Notification dated 23.9.1978 clearly provides that Federal Land Commission (Chairman and Members sitting severally) have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the cases either on its own motion or otherwise which have not been taken up by a Commission, as is the instant case, or withdraw a case pending before a Commission. In these cases FLC have inherent powers to decide the issues after re-appraisal of the record as has been done in the instant case. As regards the cases decided by a Commission of any authority, they involve revisional jurisdiction. These powers are against the impugned order passed by those below authorities of Land Reforms. Therefore, I am in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2 regarding the disposal of resumed land. Section 27 does not impose any restriction or limitation on kind of cases, which FLC may take cognizance. Power of FLC described in section 27 of Land Reforms Act, 1977 are exercisable in cases arising both under Land Reforms Act, 1977 and Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR-115) because the powers are in accordance with the preamble of MLR-115/ 72 to attain the supreme national interest regarding improvement of the economic well-being of the peasantry by making agriculture a profitable vocation...
11. In view of the above discussion and also taking further guidance from the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 reported as 1982 SCMR 682, 1999 SCMR 2697 and 2008 SCMR 866, I am not remitting the instant applications for allotment of resumed land to the learned Deputy Land Commissioner, Multan when already a long period has passed in frivolous litigation made by the declarant .merely to keep the possession in hand. Moreover, when record has been produced by the District Land Reforms Authorities of the respective revenue state where the resumed land is situated, and the parties to the case along with contestants have been heard, it is far and above the procedural requirements to be made by below authorities required at the initial stage of resumption. Hence, Deputy Land Commissioner is only required to implement the order in the revenue record to abide by the object and purpose of land reforms. Thus I am inclined to dispose of both the applications on merits after going through the record produced in the court by learned Deputy Land Commissioner, Multan by letter No. 229.DLC/LRK dated 25.8.2019, I am of the considered opinion that by disposing the resumed land to the tenants/landless, the object and purpose of Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 and Land Reforms Act, 1977 will be achieved in true letter and spirit..."
4. As to the merits of the petitioner's claim for allotment of resumed land, the Member Federal Land Commission in his order, after taking into consideration the provisions of paragraph 18 of MLR 115 and also section 27 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 read with rules framed, conclusively observed that the re-appraisal of the record produced in court by the representative of Deputy Land Commission reveals that father of petitioner, Muhammad Bakhsh was shown as sitting tenant during Kharif 1969 to Rabi 1973 in Mauza Kotla Sadaat, Tehsil Sadar, District Multan against the land resumed from Ghulam Ahmad Shah alias Munir Ahmad Shah, the declarant under Land Reforms Regulations, 1972, which period included the crucial harvest of Kharif 1971 and Rabi 1972-73 and that the Roznamcha Waqiati attached with the report also supported the entries of crucial harvest and being so the petitioner had fulfilled the requirements of law for the grant of land. On indepth scrutiny of the record, detailed discussion of the relevant provision of law applicable the Member Federal Land Commission vide order dated 29.3.2019 accepted the application of the petitioner for the Grant of Land under paragraph 18(1) of MLR 115/1972 and allotted Land Measuring 75 Kanals 11 Marlas of resumed land to Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Bakhsh, petitioner, directing Deputy Land Commission/respondent No. 2 to incorporate entries in the revenue record in the name of grantee while the petitioner as a grantee was directed to abide by Rule 9 of the Terms and Conditions for the Grant of Land, 1973. It is manifest from the order that the same was self-explanatory, dealt with all factual and legal aspects of the case and thereafter made appropriate declaration of petitioner's entitlement to the allotment of the land in question, with a specific direction to the respondent No. 1 to implement the order. Strange enough, respondent No.1, Deputy Land Commission although authority subordinate to the authority of Member Federal Land Commission instead of giving effect to the order, initially solicited report from the Assistant Land Commissioner and despite the report to the effect that the land belonged to the Land Commission and there was no injunctive order, opted to decline the request through impugned order by observing that the order in his perception was without jurisdiction and not tangible in law. It appears that respondent No.2 was construing the order to be an executive order issued on administrative side, without understanding that it was not an order on administrative side; rather it was an order on judicial side where all the factual and legal aspects of the case of respective sides were dealt with; conclusive findings were recorded and thereafter an unambiguous directive was issued to the forum below (respondent Na.1) to implement the same. In the matter of "Suo motu Case No. 24 of 2010 and Human Right Case No. 57701-P of 2010 and others" (PLD 2011 SC 963) the august Supreme Court observed to the effect that once a judicial order is passed it has binding effect on the executive as well as judicial functionaries. In "Shahabzadi Maharunissa and another v. Mst. Ghulam Sughran and another" (PLD 2016 SC 358) the honorable Supreme Court, while considering the appropriate forum to maintain an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. to question the validity of an order, judgment or decree on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or fraud, observed to the effect that it is the court which returned a final judgment in the hierarchy of jurisdiction before whom such application can be filed and that in the cases where leave to appeal was declined but in the order refusing leave detailed reasons and thorough discussion of questions of law and fact was made, then to avoid a ridiculous situation that once a question of law and fact has been elaborated and explicitly dealt with by the Supreme Court in leave refusing order, the court below may not be in a position to adjudicate on those points without commenting on the orders/reasons therein and therefore, such an application could only be filed before. the Supreme Court leaving it to the discretion of the said Court to either dispose of the matter itself or send the matter to the lower fora for decision. Undeniably, if anyone is aggrieved of the order passed on judicial side after considering the statutory provisions and the respective rights of the parties and the order is sought to be challenged on the ground of jurisdiction, the same could only be either by way of challenging the judicial order before a superior court in the hierarchy of jurisdiction or before this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction and the authority subordinate to the forum which passed the order cannot be allowed in law to comment upon the validity of the order by assuming it to be without jurisdiction or violative of some provisions of law. The proper course would be either to challenge the order in the higher forum and if no remedy is available in the higher forum then before this Court in Constitutional jurisdiction but nevertheless the lower authority, whose mandate is only to implement the -order, cannot decline implementation by assuming it to be without jurisdiction as in the case it is so done the order cannot be termed to be with lawful authority. If permission is granted to the lower forum to comment on the judicial order of its superior forum, it will lead to judicial indiscipline which cannot be permitted. The respondent No. 1 illegally ignored that being a subordinate forum he has no authority or jurisdiction in law to sit in judgment over a judicial order of forum superior in hierarchy of jurisdiction under the statute. The respondent No. 1 acted without jurisdiction and unjustifiably, in adversely commenting upon the authority of Member Federal Land Commission. It is discernible from the impugned order of respondent No. 1 that in response to his letter the Deputy Secretary, Punjab Land Commission vide letter No. 298- 2019/159-1.0 dated 23-5-2019 had informed that the office of Commission was requested to file a writ petition before this Court against order dated 29.3.2019 of the Member Federal Land Commission, Islamabad, as was allegedly done previously in certain other cases. Despite the said advisory letter, respondent No.1, proceeded to assume the jurisdiction for the annulment of the order passed by the Member Federal Land Commission though no jurisdiction vested in him to undertake such exercise. In this scenario, in the absence of filing of writ petition to challenge order dated 29.3.2019 or the issuance of any injunctive order on such exercise, the respondent No.1, travelled beyond the scope of his jurisdiction while acting as appellate forum of his superior authority, Member Federal Land Commission. The course adopted cannot by any reason be countenanced. The impugned order being patently illegal, without jurisdiction, cannot sustain. Even otherwise respondent No.1 in his impugned order reproduced paragraph 18(1) of MLR 115 but did not record any reason whatsoever for treating the order of his superior judicial forum as without lawful jurisdiction or how it was not tangible in law. The impugned order as such is perfunctory apart from being illegal and without jurisdiction.
5. For the reasons hereinabove, this Constitutional petition is allowed, order dated 11.6.2019 of respondent No.1 is declared to be illegal and without lawful jurisdiction and authority and as such inoperative. In result the petitioner's application for implementation of the order of MLR be deemed to be pending. The respondent shall now look into the matter and if no writ petition is filed, nor any injunctive order is received qua the implementation of order dated 29.3.2019 of Member Federal Land Commission, he shall proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with law and within the domain of his authority and jurisdiction.
6. Before parting with this Order this Court has observed that in para. 5 of the writ petition serious allegations have- been leveled against the respondent No.1 which cannot be left unattended. Copy of the writ petition along with this Order, shall be sent to the office of Chief Federal Land Commission/Senior Member Federal Land Commission, who shall conduct an inquiry into the matter at departmental level and in case as a result of such inquiry the allegations are sustained, he shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law and in case the allegations are not proved, then appropriate action also be solicited against the petitioner.