' AJMAL MIAN, J.- This petition is directed against the order dated 6th August, 1976 passed by respondent No, 1 (i.e, the Officer on Special Duty Federal Land Commission/Joint Secretary to the Federal Government).
' The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that respondent No, 6, who is the father of the three petitioners had gifted away certain agricultural land in favour of the petitioner on 21st June, 1969. The agricultural land, situated in Deh Dharoro No, 1 and Deh Poto measuring about 33 acres to petitioner No, 3 alone (hereinafter referred to as Gift. No, 1). Whereas the land situated in Deh No, 110 measuring about 53.6 acres was gifted in favour of all the three petitioners (hereinafter referred to as Gift No, 2). The above gifts were effected on the basis of respondent No, 6's statements made by him before the Mukhtiarkar concerned. Since petitioner No, 3 was a minor, petitioner No, 1 on his behalf got his statement of the acceptance recorded on the same day in respect of Gift No,
1. Thereupon, the entry in village form No, VII was made on the same day. The mutation fee in respect of the land situated in Deh Poto was assessed and paid on 27th May, 1970.
However, in respect of Deh Dhararo it was deposited on 27th May, 1972. Whereas respondent No, 6's statement in respect of Gift No, 2 was recorded on 11th August, 1969 and an entry in village form No, XV was also made on the same day. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners in cousequence of the above entry in form XV. Consequential amendments were made in village form No, VIII After that the donee i.e, the petitioners paid revenue for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72 (Annexures I and J,). It may be observed that upon the promulgation of the Land forms Regulation in 1972 (MLR 115) (hereinafter referred to as the MLR) respondent No, 6 filed his declaration under para. 12, which was scrutinized by the Sind Land Commissioner, who by his order dated 15th June, 1972 declared the gifts in question as valid Annexure `K' to the petition). However, in 1975, respondent No, 1 under para. 29 issued a notice in exercise of the suo mote revisional power.
Thereafter, he passed the impugned order declaring the above gifts as void, on the ground that the revenue records were manipulated by the petitioners and respondent No,
6. The petitioners being aggrieved by the above order have filed the present petition.
2. (a) Mr. Imam Ali Kazi in support of the petition has urged the following points :
(i) That the finding of respondent No, f that the revenue records were manipulated is based on surmises and conjectures.
(ii)That in view of proviso to para. 7 (1) (b) respondent No, 1 had no power to declare the gifts in favour of the legal heirs as void.
(b) On the other hand it has been urged by Mr. Naqi Mirza, learned counsel for the official respondents that the finding of respondent No, on the question of manipulation of the revenue records is supported by the original record and that in order to invoke the proviso to para. 7 (1) (b), there should be a genuine gift in favour of the legal heirs.
' Reverting to the first contention of Mr. Kazi, it may be observed that respondent No, 1 has come to the conclusion that the revenue records were manipulated for the following reasons :
(i) That the register in which the statement of gift No, I was recorded was a new register, which was opened from respondent No, 6's statement and that the previous register was not available in the revenue record in order to test the genuineness of the new register.
(ii) That the acceptance by petitioner No, 1 on behalf of petitioner No, 3 was recorded in the above register in the back of page 2 though the statement of respondent No, 6 was recorded on the back side of page 1 and that in the intervening page there is an entry, in respect of some other land which fact indicates that the record was manipulated.
(iii) That the register of village form No, VII has also been manipulated inasmuch as the entry in respect of the gift in question has been made in different ink and colour from the other leaves of the same book and quality of paper is also different.
(iv) As regards gift No, 2 i.e, Deb 110, it has been observed that the acceptance of the gift recorded at page 37 on book No, 6689 is in different ink.
(c) We have perused the original record produced by the learned counsel for the respondents and in our view the above conclusions arrived at by respondent No, 1 are based on surmises and conjectures inasmuch as even if the register containing the statements of respondent No, 6 and of petitioner No, 1 in respect of gift No, 1 is to be discarded, there is still sufficient documentary evidence on the record to conclude that the gift in question was in fact effected and acted upon prior to crucial date i.e, 20th December, 1971 gift No, 1 was mutated in the register of form VIlt on 21st June, 1969. It has been recorded as entry No,
84. However, its has been urged by Mr. Naqi Mirza, learned counsel for the respondents that the page containing the above entry has no page number and that the ink used is also different from that other pages. It is true that the page in question does not contain any page number, but in our view it does not make any difference for the reason that prior to this page there is page No, 47 and after that there is page No,
49. The numbering on the pages has been done in hand in ink and are not printed. The condition of the register of form VII is such that one gets the impression that it has not been tampered with. There is no difference in the colour of the paper. Difference in ink used for the various entries cannot invalidate an entry, as the various entries were recorded on different dates. The above documentary evidence stands corroborated by the receipt dated 27th May, 1970 in respect of the payment of mutation fee pertaining to the land situated in Deh Poto (annexure E to the petition).
From the above receipt it is evident that the above gift was acted upon much before the crucial date inasmuch as the mutation fee was paid on 21st May, 1970. The B gifts in respect of Deh Poto and Deh Dharoro were effected on the same date.
(d) As regards gift No, 2 i.e, the land situated in Deh 110, the only fault found by respondent No, 1 were that in the mutation register the acceptance by one of the donees i.e, of petitioner No, 1 is in different ink from the ink in which the statement of the donor was recorded. It may be observed that the statement of the acceptance is in the handwriting of petitioner No, 1 and whereas the statement of the donor (i.e, of respondent No, 6) has been recorded by the Tapedar in his own handwriting and, therefore, difference in the colour of ink is explainable. In this regard it was fairly conceded by Mr. Naqi Mirza that this could be so. Furthermore, the petitioners have paid land revenue for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72 through the receipts (Annexures I and J to the petition) in respect of the above land. The date of one of the receipts prior to the crucial date. In our view the second gift could not have been declared as void on the aforesaid ground that found favour with responder No, I.
3. Reverting to the learned counsel for the petitioners' second contention that in view of proviso to para. 7 (I) (b), it was not open to respondent No, 1 to question the gifts in favour of the petitioners being the legal heirs, of respondent No, 6, it may be observed that reliance have been placed on the case of Hayat Muhammad and another. v. Member, Federal Land Commission (1), in which a Division Bench of Lahore High Court held that in view of proviso to para. 7 (1) (h) a distinction is to be made between the factum of a transaction of gift having been made and its bona fide and that the Federal Land Commission is not competent to inquire into the bona fide. The effect of the above cited case seems to be that in view of the above proviso in para. 7 (1) (b). The Federal Commission is entitled to go into the question as to whether in fact there was a gift in favour of a legal heir, but it cannot inquire into the bona fide of such gift. Since in the instant case the factum of the gifts has been proved, respondent No, I was not entitled to go into the bona fide of the gifts.
' In view of the above discussion we allow the petitton and set aside the impugned order and declare the same as being without lawful authority. However there will be no order as to costs.
(1) PLD 1974 Lab. 456