1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM. J: This order disposed of Civil petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 113-R and 114-R of. 1977.
2. The first respondent in C. P. S. L. A. No. 113-R of 1977 alienated 1,055 Kanals and 84 Marlas of land equivalent to 7,730 Produce Index Units between 7-4-1970 and 7-8-1971, through various mutations effected during this period. Consequently, on the crucial date vie. 20-12-1971 his land holding stood at 13.,780 Produce Index Units which was less than the maximum limit fixed. For an individual in para. 8 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115. He submitted his declaration form (L. R-I) in which he claimed that the alienations made earlier were valid under para. 7((1) (b) of the Martial Law Regulation No. 115 and that, therefore, he was not required to surrender any land under the aforesaid Regulation. The Land Commissioner, Multan on scrutiny of the declaration held by order dated 22-8-1972 that Mutations Nos. 104, 108, 143, 144, 154, 155 and 167 were ineffective as the vendees were his family members and alienations in their favour were not permissible in view of explanation (II) to Para. 7(1) (b) of Martial Law Regulation No. 115. Subsequently on the promulgation of the Land Reforms (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1973 the explanation was deleted and pursuant to a suo motu review the Land Commissioner, Multan by order dated 13-9-1972 held that the mutations earlier declared to be void were valid. The prima consideration for holding so was that the sale consideration was deposited in the Bank on the same day and that the first respondent had acquired 801, Kanals on 24-2-1971 in village Alipur which he would not have done if he wanted to evade the provisions of the Land Reforms Regulations by selling land to his family members.
3. However, the Federal Land Commissioner suo motu re-opened the proceedings under para. 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation and by order dated 9-9-1976 held that the validity of the transactions evidenced by Mutations Nos. 104, 118, 144, 154, 155 and 167 was doubtful and declared them to be void. As for Mutation No. 143 he held that it did not require interference. Aggrieved by this order the first respondent in C. P. S. L. A: No. 113-R of 1977 and respondents Nos. 1 to 10 in C. P. S. L. A. No. 114-R of 1977 invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court through separate Writ Petitions Nos. 2950 of 1976 and 2860 of 1976.
4. A learned Single Judge upheld the validity of Mutations Nos. 104 and 118 on the ground that the Federal Land Commissioner erroneously held that the price of the land was substantially less i. e.
5. Rs. 1.,050 and 1,200 per acre, respectively, which was not the case as this was the average price of the land sold. The learned Single Judge also held that the validity of alienation in favour of a relative could not be doubted, for Explanation (11) to para. 7 (1) (b) stood deleted. As regards the bona fide of the tran--sactions it could not be doubted as the receipt of the consideration, was not denied and also its deposit in the Bank the same day. Again the Learned Judge held that the fall in the price was due to the fact ! E-t the canal water had been stopped after Kharif 1969 and, therefore, there was a downward trend in the rice of the land. Accordingly, -- felid that the declaration as to the transaction being void was not on any relevant consideration. Also for the same reasons the learned single judge upheld the validity of Mutation No. 144. Accordingly, the order of Federal land Commissioner was set aside qua these mutations. The learned Judge, however, upheld the order of the Federal land Commissioner Mutations Nos. 154, 155 and 167.
6. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge holding, Mutations Nos. 104 and 144 to be valid. His contention is that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration material produced for the first time at the hearing and has upon that material based his conclusion which is not the proper course, as the case should have been remanded to the Federal Land Commissioner for the consideration of that material. We do not see any error even if the learned Single Judge had taken the material into consideration consider--ing that the petitioner was not able to dispute the bona fide of the transactions in the context of the reasons given by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the petitioner in both the petitions has failed to make out a case for the grant of special leave to appeal and we dismiss the petitions.