Ch. Muhammad Masood Jahangir , J.--For delivering this judgment, reference to the pleaded facts would be that Muhammad Abdullah son of Muhammad Hussain (predecessor of Respondents No. 5 & 6) was declarant under The Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 and being minor declaration on his end was filed by his father while disclosing in form LR-I that area of 2722-kanals 16-marlas was gifted out in favour of his sisters Nusrat Begum, Nuzhat Begum and Nasira Begum through Mutation No. 99 on 18th October , 1971, but Land Commissioner declared it void on 16th June, 1972. No doubt, there after it was reviewed by the same author ity on 13th December , 1973 and declared the gift transaction to be invalid on the ground that it could not be said that the declarant's father while making transaction as guardian of his minor son Muhammad Abdullah had acted in the interest of the latter by gifting away such a large area. However , in appeal Additional Chief Land Commissioner vide his order of 21st July, 1973 declared the gift transaction as valid, but the learned Member Federal Land Commission while exercising its suo moto revisional powers on 24th November , 1976 seaside afore-noted orders of his subordinate while holding that Mutation No. 99 in terms of para No. 7(1)(B) of the Regulation ibid was void. Although this order was assailed by the declarant, his three daughters (beneficiaries of said mutation) as well as their father before this Court by means of Constitutional Petition No. 351 of 1977, but without any success having been dismissed in limine on 29th March, 1977, which further sustained before the apex Court when their appeal No. 260/1977 dismissed on 29th October , 1991.
It was a hard fact that during the pendency of said appeal before the apex Court, Muhammad Abdullah declarant submitted choice before the Deputy Land Commissioner , Sahiwal while surrendering 1656-kanals 02-marlas equivalent to 9162 PIUs falling in different khasras of the joint holding. Consequently the said land was resumed as per desire and will of the declarant for its transfer to the sitting tenants. Although sisters/beneficiaries of Mutation No. 99 challenged it through appeal, but dismissed by the learned Land Commissioner , Multan on 23rd May, 1990.
Thereafter on a move through application by the declarant for implementation of order dated 23rd May, 1990, the Deputy Land Commissioner on 08th July, 1991 directed that after resumption of 9162 PIUs as per choice of the declarant, fresh calculation of PIUs be carried out and khata of the resumed land be also separated from the khata of the declarant. No doubt, revision petitions of the declarant as well as his sisters before Chief Land Commissioner succeeded and while setting aside afore-noted orders, the matter was remanded to the Deputy Land Commissioner , Pakpattan for fresh decision after extending right of audience to the parties, who in compliance of the same on 27th January , 1997 resumed the excess land in favour of Land Comm ission according to the choice of the declarant under para No. 11(I) of the Regulation ibid while observing that Mutation No. 99 stood already declared void up to the apex Court and required submission of proposal for allotment of resumed land to the eligible tenants.
The appeal and then RORs were dismissed by the Land Commissioner , Multan and Chief Land Commissioner , Punjab vide orders of 12th July 2000 & 29th June, 2009 respectively . However , Revision Petition of the successors of the declarant and beneficiaries of Mutation No. 99 were allowed by the Chairman Federal Land Commission through order of 16th February , 2010, by merely concluding as under: `Under the circumstances, Federal Land Commission has no option but to accept the Revision Petition and set aside the order dated 27.01.1999, passed by the learned Deputy Land Commissi oner Pakpattan, the order dated 12.07.2000 passed by the learned Land Commissioner Multan/Pakpattan and the order dated 29.06.2009 passed by the learned Chief Land Commissioner Punjab. It is also made clear that all the orders, decisions made during the status qua order issued by the Apex Court of Pakistan also declared null and void.'
Being aggrieved, this petition on behalf of the tenants and connected Writ Petition No. 24410/2013 by the State, whereas Writ Petition No. 7695/2010 was made by the sisters of the declarant (beneficiaries of Mutation No. 99).
As the subject matter is identical and all these three petitions have been preferred against common impugned order , thus we propose to decide the same jointly through single judgment, however source of reference would be petition in hand.
2. Heard. Record scanned with the able assistance of learned counsel as well as learned Law Officer on behalf of the respective parties.
3. In the case in hand, the gift under consideration was made prior to 20th Decem ber, 1971, as such Clause (b) of Paragraph 7 (1) of the Regulation ibid is relevant, which recognized the validity of transaction relating to land struck before the said date provided the Land Commission constituted under the Regulation was satisfied with regard to its bona fide. However , proviso to this clause treated the gift made by the declarant on a different footing inasmuch as it precluded the Land Commission from holding any transfer of land or creation of right or interest or encumbrance by way of gift to be bona fide. Although such restriction on the power of Land Commission was relaxed regarding a gift made to an heir or, in certain circumstances to a widowed or unmarried sister , however , 'Explanation I' explained the word 'heir' to mean the donor's wife or wives, sons, daughters, father , mother and sons and daughters of a deceased son or daughter . Whereas, the gift made to an unmarried or widowed sister was to be governed by sub-clause (ii) of the second proviso to paragraph 7 (1) (b), which provided that a gift could be treated as valid only if the `widowed' or 'unmarri ed' sister of the donor had not received her due share of inheritance of ancestral land. The flow of the said provis ion irresistibly suggested that it referred to the agnatic rule that prevailed under the custom whereby the sisters were deprived of their personal law share in the ancestral land left by the common ancestor , which was applicable only in those cases where the inheritance had already opened prior to the making of the gift conquest upon the death of the common ancestor , there has been an unfair distribution of the ancestral land. Having faced identical proposition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Syed Muhammad Ahmad Shah & Co. versus Additional Chief Land Commissioner , Punjab, Lahore' (1974 SCMR 409) has already declared a gift in favour of unmarried minor sister as void. In this case when matter in earlier cycle went before the apex Court on the same lines, the transaction of gift having already been declared void was maintained. Thus, the conclusion of the apex Court having stood final became past and closed chapter . Moreover , the declarant was accommodated to surrender land according to his revised choice, so tendered, thus excess land equivalent to 9162 PIUs was resumed in favour of the Land Commission, therefore he or his successor cannot agitate his any right or interest in the property in dispute. The Chairman Federal Land Commission without considering said aspects of the case erred in law to set aside the said orders while reopening the pandora box, which stood already culminated up to the apex Court of the State. The emphasis of Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Khan, Advocate/learned counsel for the writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 7695/2010 that view of the learned Chairman was perfect as per impact of Qazalbash Waqfs case (PLD 1990 SC 99). Suffice it to say that it was settled thereby that the said decision would not effect the pending cases, which shall be decided under the provisions of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, hence was not applicable in the case in hand.
5. Consequently , Constitutional Petition in hand and that of the State bearing Writ Petition No. 24410/2013 have substance, which are allowed, order impu gned herein is set aside, whereas Writ Petition No. 7695/2010 filed by the beneficiaries of gift transaction is dismissed