' On information given by a number of tenants represented by Ata Muhammad and Bisham that the holdings of the heirs of Mir Sher Jan Khan Mazari had not been correctly determined by the Land Commission authorities the matter was scrutinised by the Federal Land Commission Inspection Team and suo motu proceedings under section 27 of Land Reforms Act, 1977 were initiated and record of the proceedings before the Land Commission in respect of the declarant Mst. Anwar Khatoon was called Mst. Anwar Khatoon was a declarant under M. L. R. 115 and was allowed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, D. G. Khan, vide his order dated 19-6-1975, to retain an area or 016.013 acres equivalent to 14,000 P. I. Us. As detailed below and resumed : No,. {{TABLE TEXT}} an area of 321153 acres equivalent to Name of villageArea 3912 P. I. Us. Was P. L Us, Mat Dilbar/Chak Dilbar 1574300 4088 Mat Dilbar/Chak Mat 1931300 5176 Kacha Paru Shah/Sonmiani 179'638 2690 Kacha Paru Shah/Dinwani 77'783 1447 Rajanpur No,. 1 '037 2 Dera Ghazi Khan Gharbi '211 8 Court of Ward 8'844 589 Total 6161313 14000 {{TABLE TEXT}} ' She did not file any declaration under the Land Reforms Act, 1977 (Act II of 1977) and by a separate order dated 27-11-1977 the D. L. C., D. G. Khan had determined her holding under Land Reforms Act, 1977 and found it to be below the ceiling prescribed in the Act. No, action is, therefore, necessary in respect of her declaration under Land Reforms Act, 1977. As regards her declaration under M. L. R. 115 and the order of the D. L. C., D. G. Khan dated 19-6-1975 in respect thereof the Federal Land Commission Inspection Team has made a number of objections which have been examined and were taken up in the hearing in presence of the counsel for the respondents and two of the tenants, Ata Muhammad and Bisham.
2. Counsel for the respondents on a point of law questioned the jurisdiction of the Federal Government to call for, under section 27 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977, the record of proceedings relating to matters under -M. L. R.
115. He contended that the Federal Government had not been vested with powers for calling for such record. Even under para. 29 of M. L. R. 115 these powers were available only up to 30th No,vember, 1976 vid Amendment No,. LXXIV of 1976 to the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972-and no action in exercise of suo motu jurisdiction could, therefore, be taken after that date. The present notice calling for the record of the proceedings in respect of the declarant had been issued under section 27 of Act II of 197 and, the counsel argued that the record called under Act II of 1977 could only be examined in respect of matters falling under that Act and that matters relating to M. L. R. 115 could not be taken up in this manner speciall as the record of proceedings under M. L. R. 115 could not be called after 30th November, 1976 vide third proviso (a) of para. 29 of M. L. R. 115 as amended by Act, LXXIV of 1976. The point, however, is not valid because section 27 of Land Reforms Act 1977 does not impose any limitations on the kind of cases of which the Federal Government may take cognizance under this section. Powers of the Federal Government described in section 27 of Land Reforms Act, 1977 are exercisable in cases raised both under Act II of 1977 and the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 because the powers are in respect of decisions by a commission or any authority empowered by a commission and the terms has been definded in section 2 of the Act as the Federal or a Provincial Land Commission constituted under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972.
There is nothing in section 27 or in any other provision of the Act which can be construed as restricting the powers of the Federal Government under section 27 of the Act to cases arising only under the Land Reforms Act, 1977. In the absence of any specific provision the powers conferred by section 27 of the Act on the Federal Government are available in cases pending not only under Land Reforms Act, 1977 but also under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972.
' Objections made by the Federal Land Commission Inspection Team were then taken up and examined on merits. The first objection was that the Deputy Land Commissioner, in his order dated 19-6-1975, had allowed the declarant to retain 157 acres in village Mat Dilbar/Chak Dilbar, Tehsil Rajanpur, District D. C. Khan equivalent to 4088 P. I. Us. As on 20-12-1971 but an examination of the revenue record showed that the holding of the declarant on that date had been entered as 155-7- 13 acres equivalent to 4139 P. I. Us. An unjustified excess of 51 P. I. Us. Had thus been allowed the declarant which should.Be resumed. Similarly the declarant was allowed to retain 77-6-5 acres equivalent to 1447 P. I. Us. In village Kutcha Paru Shah/Dinwani and 63-2-19 acres equivalent to 1185 P. I. Us. Were ordered to be resumed. The land revenue authorities, however, had resumed only an area of 22-1-13 acres equivalent to 1083 P. I. Us. Vide-mutation No,. 120 and an additional area of 4- 1-6 acres was, therefore, required to be resumed. On careful examination of the record of the case it was found that the order of the. D. L. C., D. G. Khan itself was correct in respect of the holdings of the declarant in these villages and had not been questioned even by the F. L. C. Inspection Team.
What the Inspection Team in fact was challenging was the action of the land revenue authorities in giving effect to the orders of the Land Commission authorities. Even if the action of the land revenue authorities is in fact questionable the remedy does not lie in raising this matter before this forum the jurisdiction of which is restricted by section 27 of Land Reforms Act, 1977 to call for a case decided by a Commission as defined in the Act or any authority empowered by the Commission in this behalf and examine such a decision in regard to its propriety, correctness or legality and pass such order as it may deem necessary. The powers given by this section do not extend to examination of matters decided by authorities other than the federal or pro vicinal land commission constituted under M. L. R.
115. This matter, therefore, cannot be decided in exercise of powers under section 27 of Land Reforms Act, 1977: The Federal Land Commission should, however bring this matter to the notice of the Board of Revenue, Government of Punjab for such action as they may deem necessary.
4. The second objection raised by the Inspection Team was in respect of the holding of the declarant in village Katcha Paru Shah/Somiani where the declarant had been allowed to retain 179.636 acres vide the order dated 19-6-1975 of the D. L. C. Referred to earlier. According to the Inspection Team report the declarant had alienated 167-3-1 acres by sale/exchange leaving with herself only an area of 11-6-19 acres in the village which was a clear con travention of para. 24 of M.
L. R.
115. On the face of it the point raised by: by the Federal Land Commission's Inspection Team appears to be valid but again this is not a matter which can be taken up in the present proceedings under section 27 of Land Reforms Act, 1977. If the facts as reported in the F. L. C.
Inspection Team's note are correct the transaction in question is void in the eyes of law and will be regarded as such by any authority before which the matter comes up in exercise of the jurisdiction of such authority. Since no question of determination of the declarant's holding is being decided by this tribunal in the present proceedings, no order in respect of the said alienation can he made. The Federal Land Commission, however, should bring this matter also to the notice of the Board of Revenue, Government of Punjab for such action as they may deem necessary.
5. The Inspection Team report did not find any substance in the complaints filed by the tenants represented by Ata Muhammad and Bisham against the declarant. These persons, however, had been given an opportunity to appear before this tribunal and represent their point of view but they did not make any point which could be examined and decided.
6. In view of the position discussed in the preceding paragraphs the notice issued to the declarant under section 27 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 is hereby vacated.