1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-These appeals (C. A. Nos. 123/78 and 124/78) through special leave of this Court call in question judgment dated 18-2-1978 of the Lahore High Court ; whereby it set aside certain orders passed by the Land Commission Authorities in its constitutional jurisdiction.
2. Leave was granted to consider the question of interpretation of para--graphs 2 (10) and 12 of the Land Reforms Regulation (Martial Law Regulation 1 IS) of 1972. In the context, following two arguments were raised at the leave stage :- "(a) that the learned Single Judge was not justified in not treating the land 'as a special urban area' which was to be valued as a class by itself and was not to be assessed with reference to its classification in the relevant revenue record.
(b) that the learned Single Judge erred in holding the circular letter (dated 17-7-1974 of the Land Commission above-mentioned as to be ultra vireo the provisions of M. L. R. 115 of 1972."
3. The relevant paragraph of the Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972 read as follows :- "Paragraph 2 (101. "Produce index unit" means the measure in term of which the comparative productivity of an area of land of a particular kind in a particular assessment circle or area is computed and expressed for the purposes of the schemes relating to resettlement of displaced persons on land, or was determined under the provisions of sub--paragraph (10) of paragraph 2 of the repealed Regulation ; and in respect of an assessment circle or area where no such unit was determin--ed, such measure as may be determined by the Commission for the Province within which such assessm ent circle or area is situated ; Paragraph 12. Declaration.-(1) A Commission may. By order published in the official Gazette, direct the following classes of persons to submit to such authority, in such manner and form and by such date, as may be specified in the order, the following declarations ;
(a) declarations by persons who on 1st March, 1967, owned or possessed land excess of an area equivalent to twelve thousand "produce index units" calculated on the basis of classification of soil as entered in the revenue records of Kharif 1966 and Rabi 1966-67 ; (b)
4. The precise question raised from the appellants' side before the Chief Land Commissioner, was that the land in question having been described in the revenue records as "Nehri (Awal)", it was incumbent upon the authorities concerned to have worked out the Produce Index Units at the rate of 8l produce Index Units, as prescribed in the relevant booklet used by the Rehabilitation and Settlement Authority as also by the Land Commission Authorities-the entries relied upon relating to Faisalabad are at page 20 of the booklet. The Chief Land Commissioner, on the other hand, relying on an earlier judgment by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, in case of Nawab Muzafar All Khan Qazilbash v. The State, held that the land in question, notwithstanding the fact that it might be "Nehri (Awal)" had been included in the municipal limits of Faisalabad Towntherefore, making use of the same entries at page 20 of the booklet, it was held to be a Special Class Town Land (a)- that note being 108 P. I. Us.
5. The declarants (respondents herein) challenged the decision of the Chief Land Commissioner in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court and a learned Single Judge agreeing with their interpretation of the relevant law held that the Land Commission Authorities were bound to follow strictly the entries in the revenue records for purpose of calculating the Produce Index Units if the classification of soil vis-a-vis the Produce Index Units are available in the revenue records as also in the booklet mentioned above. It was also held that the circular issued by the Land Commission on 17-7-1974, regarding the lands falling within the municipal limits was not followed in these cases and the same was ultra vireo the Land Reforms Regulation. Accordingly the concerned authorities were directed to follow the relevant taw "strictly in calculating Produce Index Units" which meant that the units were to be accounted as if the land in dispute was to be treated as Nehri (Awal) at 81 P.
1. Us. And not the Special Class Town Land at 108 P. I. Us.
6. The relevant entries at page 20, regarding Lyallpur (Faisalabad) read as follows LYALLPUR TehsilAssessm ent CircleSoilProduce Index LyallpurLyallpurSpecial class town108 land (a) Special class town land (b)
7. I81 II81 III (a)81 III (b)81 IV (a)54 IV (b)54 V (a)54 V (b)54, VI54 Barani32.--- The classification of soil in the revenue records is Nehri. Word "Awal" is also mentioned at some places but not at all the relevant places. The afore-quoted entries at page 20 regarding Faisalabad do pot contain any item like "Nehri" or "Nehri Awal". With regard to Faisalabad a departure has been made in this behalf and the land has been classified as Special Class Town Land, of two types and then different classes of land from one to six (I, II, III, IV, V, VI) as also Barani.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the parties as also the officer assisting the learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out the definition and con--notation of "Special Class Town Land" or for that matter lands. They made only guess work by ascertaining that it might lie possible to discover the basis of this classification from Mr. Kirpilalni's Report of 1936 for Lyallpur District ; but, none relied on it specifically nor was it available with any one of them. Similar situation was faced by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner in the case of Nawab Muzafar A.I Khan Qazilbash. After posing the question as to what class of lands can be called a 'special class town land,', the answer was rendered with reference to the remaining items in the relevant entries and not from any basis for that classification. The situation was not faced squarely by the Chief Land Commissioner even when dealing with the same question in the present case.
9. It cannot be denied, that paragraph 12(1)(a) of the Regulation in its primary application requires that the "Produce Index Units" would have to be calculat--ed on the basis of classification of soil" as entered in the "revenue records" of the prescribed period. Thus the "classification in the revenue records" cannot be ignored but the phrase "Produce Index Units" used in the same provision has to be co-related with its definition in paragraph 2 (10) ; which makes it mandatory to consult the measure and rates prescribed to the scheme relating to Settlement of Displaced Persons on land or those determin--ed under corresponding sub-paragraph (10) of paragraph 2 of the repealed Regulations. If in respect of an assessment circle or area the aforementioned determination of measure and rates is not available then the same can b determined by the commission concerned. In the present case the attempt to corelate the definition of Produce Index Units with the classification soil in the relevant revenue records, has not proved to be of any advantage.While one phreseology had been used in the revenue record "Nehiri" or "Nehrr Awal" ; another expression has been used in the relevant entries regarding Produced Index Units namely "Spatial Class Town Land" or only' I" and "II etc. In such a situation,' with respect it is pointed out, the High Court could not have made use of the literal classification of land in the revenue records nor the Land Reforms Authorities could have made similar literal use of the relevant entries at p. 20 of the booklet. There was a need for correlating the same by virtual digging out and discovering the rationale o entries on both the sides. And if it was not possible to correlate them, ma be it was a case for exercise of power by the Land Commission under the last parts of sub-paragraph (i0) of paragraph 2 of the Regulation. As the material placed before us is not enough to decide the first mentioned controversy and the scope for second alternative lies somewhere else ; therefore, it would e~1b appropriate to remand the case to the Chief Land Commissioner for fresh decision. The result is that while allowing these appeals, we set aside the impugned judgment with the above orders of remand but there shall be no 9rder as to costs.