{{BLUR PAGE}} ' The holding of the declarant, Syed Jamil Husiain Shah (deceased) wider Land Reforms Act, 1977 was determined as 243.940 acres equivalent to 14032 P. I. Us. By the Deputy Land Commissioner, Lahore vide his order dated 22-10-1977 whereby he had ordered resumption of an area equivalent to 6032_ F. L Us. As being in excess of the limit imposed on individual holdings under the Act. The declarant filed an appeal against this order which was accepted vide Land Commissionerlahore's order dated 26-12-1977 and the case was remanded to the D. L. C. Tor fresh decision on the ground that the declarant had not been heard by the D. L. C. Before he passed his order. In the meantime the declarant had also made an application to the Collector, Lahore under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 for correction of entries in the Khasra Gardawari in-respect of his holding situated in village Amirpura, Tehsil & District. Lahore:- The Collector Lahore, vide his order dated 11- 1-1981, accepted the petition and ordered correction of entries in the Khasra Gardawari relating to Xharif 1976 in respect of 103 Khasra numbers which were changed from nal nehri to banjar qadeem. On the basis of these revised entries in the Khasra Gardawari the D. L. C. Lahore redetermined"-the holding of the declarant vide hiS order dated 12-2-1982 as 239 acres 4 kanals and 11 mar/as equivalent to 8988 P. I. Us. And ordered resumption of only 988 P. I. Us. Instead of 6032 P. I Us. Which were to be resumed according to the original order. Scrutiny of the record relating to these .,proceedings in the Federal Land Commission indicated that the D. L4s" order dated 12-2-1982 was not proper and correct as it disregarded the,' '6-vlikini,,tillamr:in respect of corrections in the Khasra waif whip the basis of classification of soil for determining produce index units of the holding. The scrutiny also indicated that the gift made by the declarant in favour of his son of an area of land measuring 67-5-13 acres in village Kaluwali equivalent to 4448 P. I. Us.
Through mutation No,. 15 dated 28-9-1972 was wrongly validated by Additional Chief Land Commissioner Punjab vide his order dated 7-6-1973 since the declarant in making the gift out of his total holding of 81-4-2 acres in the said village had reduced his own' holding in the village to less than an economic holding and had, therefore, violated the provisions of paragraph 25 of M. L.
R. 64 which was the law in force at the time when the gift was made. No,tices were accordingly issued under section 27 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 calling for the record of the entire proceedings relating to this declaration in order to determine correctness, legality and propriety of the orders in this respect.
2. Counsel for the respondents/heirs of Syed Jamil Hussain Shah (deceased) declarant was heard and the entire record of the proceedings relating to this declaration under M. L. R. 115 and Act II of 1977 and the land revenue record of village Kaluwali, Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujranwala and village Amirpura Tehsil & District Lahore was examined. Counsel for the respondents in his arguments during the hearing raised some points of law and also argued on the merits of the facts relating to the objections raised against the determination of the holding of the deceased declarant and resumption of excess land from him. The counsel later sent written arguments in the form of a petition under section 26 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 which were received before the writing of this order.
3. ' It will be appropriate to take up the points raised by the counsel in his so-called petition under section 26 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 containing his written arguments before dealing with the points raised by him during the hearing itself. In the petition the counsel has contended that the Federal Government No,tification No,. II-1977/LR-2/78 dated 23-9-1978 by which the Federal Government had delegated its powers under section 27 of the said Act to the Chairman and members of the Federal Land Commission was ultra vires of the Federal Government because under the scheme of the Act the Federal Government and the Federal Land Commission have separate and independent roles assigned to them and that, therefore, the Federal Government could not delegate its powers to the Federal Land Commission which has been assigned a completely different and independent role under the Act. The petitioner then goes on to make the plea that since the point raised in it constituted a dispute or doubt as to the extent or scope of the powers exercisable by the Federal Land Commission the matter should be referred to the Federal Government for removal of these doubts under section 26 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977. I do not consider it necessary to act upon the suggestion of the counsel for the respondents regarding a reference to the Federal Government under section 26 of the Act because I feel quite competent to decide the issue raised by him. The Federal Government has under section 22 of Land Reforms Act, 1977, full powers to delegate at any time any of its powers or functions under the Act to such body o person as it may deem necessary for purposes of the Act and these power do not exclude the Federal Land Commission. Such powers can, therefore), be delegated to the Federal. Land Commission even as a body in the absence of an express provision to the contrary in the section itself. A careful reading of the Notification in question, however, shows that these powers have not in fact been delegated to the Federal Land Commission as a body. The delegation actually made by the Federal Government through this No,tification is in favour of individuals who happen to be the Chairman or members of the Federal Land Commission in their individual capacity acting severally. His view is supported by the case decided by the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court PLD 1981 Lah. 159, para. 57) in which it was held that the said No,tification the words 'Chairman and members of the Federal and Commission' meant not the Commission itself but the individual persons his happened to be the Chairman and members of the Commission separately. Here is thus no question of mixing up of the powers exercisable by the Federal Land Commission as a body under the Act and the powers exercise persons who have been delegated the powers of the Federal Government under section 27 of the Act. It is also clear that in this particular case the Bowers and the jurisdiction which I as a member of the Federal Land commission am required to exercise in respect of the matter cannot be exercised by the Federal Land Commission as a body.
There is, therefore conflict between the powers exercisable by the Federal Land Commission s a body and those exercisable by a member of the Federal Land Commission as a delegate of the Federal Government under section 27 of the Act.
4. Now I will take up the points raised by the counsel for the respond eats in the hearing itself. The counsel argued that the record of the case had en called under section 27 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 whereas one of the matters which was being decided viz, propriety of the order dated 7-6- 1973 of A. C. L. C. Punjab declaring the gift Mutation No,. 15 dated 28-9-1972 s valid was passed under M. L. R.
115. The counsel argued that the record ailed under Act II of 1977 could only be examined in respect of matter ailing under that Act and that matters relating to M. L. R. 115 could no taken up in this manner specially as the record of proceedings under L. R. 115 cannot be called after 30 No,vember, 1976 vide the third proves a) of para. 29 of M. L. R. 115 as amended by Act LXXIV of 1976. Tied the case PLD 1982 Rev. 90 in support of his argument. The case 'ted by him is completely irrelevant to his argument as it is in respect of something quite different. The point, however, is not valid because section 27 Land Reforms Act, 1977 does not impose any limitations on the kind of case of which the Federal Government may take cognizance under this section. Powers of the Federal Government described in section 27 of Land deforms Act 1977 are exercisable in cases arising both under Act II of 1977 and the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 because the powers, are in respect decisions by a commission or any authority empowered by a commission and the term has been defined in section 2 of the Act as a federal or provincial and commission constituted under Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. There nothing in section 27 or. In any other provision of the Act which may be construed as restricting the powers of the Federal Government under sec on 27 of the Act to cases arising only under the Land Reforms Act, 1977. The absence of any specific provision the powers conferred by section 2 of the Act on the Federal Government are available in cases pending not my under Land Reforms Act, 1977 but also under the Land Reforms', emulation, 1972.
5. On the merits of the objections raised against the orders of A. C. L. C. Punjab dated 7-6.1973 and the D. L. C. Lahore dated 12-2-1982 the counsel the respondents argued that, the intention of paragraph25 of M. L. R. 64 as only to prevent fragmentation of land and, therefore, even if the alienation and through mutation No,. 15 dated 28-9-1972 by the deceased declarant as considered void as being in conflict with para. 25(1) of M. L. R. 64 it could be held void only to the extent to which the alienation was actually in violation and not to the extent of the entire alienation. In support of this he cited the case PLD 1975 Lah.
158. I am in agreements with the arguments of the counsel on this point as it is settled law that the invalidity referred to in paragraph 25 of M. L. R. 64 is only vis-a-vis that portion or fraction of area by which the balance holding of an alien or is reduced from the limit below which he could not be permitted to reduce the same and does not render the entire transaction as void. In the instant case, therefore, the transaction made through mutation No,. 15 dated 28-9-1972 in village Kaluwali, Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujranwala is void only to the extent of 36-1-11 acres and the gift to the extent of 31-4-2 acres is valid as even after the alienation through gift of this area of land the declarant was still left with 50 acres in village Kaluwali which was the economic holding under M. L.
R.
64.
6. In respect of- the objection to the D. L. C. Lahore's order dated 12-2-1982 which determined the holding of the .Declarant on the basis of corrections made in' the Khasra Gardawari relating to 1976 Kharif vide Collector Lahore's order dated 11-1.1981, the counsel cited the case reported in PLD 1968 Rev. 1 to prove that Revenue Officers were under. Obligation to correct wrong entries in Khasra Gardawaris and that this correction could be made even seven years after the date of. The original entry. He had nothing further to say regarding the correctness or propriety of the procedure followed in making these corrections in this particular case. I have examined the orders relating to the said corrections and have also studied the K.Hasr Gardawari relating to Kharif 1976 which is the crucial crop for purposes of determining soil classification of the land in' question under section 3 of Land Reforms Act, 1977. I find that the order of the revenue authority allowing the correction of entries is irregular and based on no evidence whatsoever but that is a matter which is in the jurisdiction of the competent authority under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 to take note of. For purposes of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 I find that the order of correction made in 1981 by the Collector Lahore is not relevant because the position on 4-1-1977, the date of the coming into force of Land Reforms Act, 1977, in respect of the holding of the deceased declarant had to be determined in accordance with the entries in the Khasra Gardawari relating to Kharif 1976 as these stood on 4-1-1977. The changes in these entries mado.4 years later on 11-1-1981 are not relevant.
7. For reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs I set aside the orders of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Lahore dated 29-12-1973 and 12-2-1982 and direct him to redetermine the holding of declarant Syed Jamil Hussain Shah (deceased) in accordance with the findings in paragraphs 5 and 6 above, that is to say, that in respect of mutation No,. 15 dated 28-9-1972 in village Kaluwali, District Gujranwala the gift shall be considered void to the extent of 36-1-11 acres and the holding of the declarant shall be redetermined accordingly and in respect of the declarant's land in village Amirpura, Tehsi and District Lahore the P. I. Us. Will be calculated on the basis of the so classification indicated in the entries in the Khasra Gardawari relating to Khari 1976 before these were changed by the order of Collector, Lahore date 11-1-1981.
8. Judgment in this case was reserved when it was last heard o 23-12-1982. This order should, therefore, be conveyed to all concerned through the D. L. C., Lahore. {{BLUR PAGE}} Ss\ 1-Wzb .0k1 D'- .
10. Ag,t Di Rawl daiii-o441-tevax, *fit -