1. FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-On the promulgation of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, the petitioner Faqir Muhammad filed a declaration disclosing leis holding and sought validation of certain alienations made by him by way o--- gift in favour of his sons- and daughters who are the petitioners in the connected leave petition No. K-84 of 1980. This declaration was scrutinized by the Land Commissioner and Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, under paragraph 7 of the Regulation and vide his order dated 16-8-1972, all the alienations made by the petitioner in favour of the donees were declared to be void. Faqir Muhammad filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed by the Chief Land Commissioner on 25-6-1973. He then applied for review of this order which was also dismissed on 8-7-1974. A revision application filed under paragraph 29 of the Regulation met the same fate vide order dated 6-12-1974 made by the Member, Federal Land Commission.
2. The aforesaid orders were challenged before the High Court of Sind in two separate petitions, one filed by the petitioner Faqir Muhammad and the other by the donees, his sons and daughters, who are as mentioned above, are petitioners in the connected leave petition. The High Court dismissed the two petitions on the ground that no, interference was called for on the finding of fact given by the Land Commission Officers that there was no proof of gifts allegedly made by Faqir Muhammad in favour of his sons and daughters. The. High Court also agreed with the finding given by the Land Commission Officers that the possession of the land allegedly gifted, continued to remain with the donor Faqir Muhammad.
3. Mr. Imam A.I G. Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that under proviso to clause (b) of Paragraph 7 of the Regulation, it was pot open to the Land Commission to question bona fides of alienations made by a person in favour of his heirs and it was, therefore, not open to the Land Commission to invalidate the transfers made by the petitioner Faqir Muhammad in favour of his heirs, the sons and daughters byway of gift. The argument is irrelevant inasmuch as there would be no occasion to examine bona fides of a transactions in absence of proof of a transaction such as gifts in the present case. The learned Judges of the High Court, whit dismissing the two petitions have given cogent reasons for agreeing with the finding arrived at by the Land Commission that the gifts were never proved and in any event, its possession never passed to the donees. The gifts, it ma be noticed, were said to be oral and it was, therefore, incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that possession of the land allegedly gifted had bee delivered to the donees. The High Court was right in not interfering with the finding of fact arrived at by the successive officers of the Land Commission that the alienations made by Faqir Muhammad in favour of his sons and daughters were not proved.
4. The result, therefore, is that there is no merit in these petitions and they are accordingly dismissed.