1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioner is a grand son of the donor, and s been aggrieved by an order that vacated a previous order of confirmation gift in his favour.
2. It insignificant to note that the petitioner never claimed that on the date of gift his father was not living. He has not stated even now whether his father was alive then and is alive now. We asked the learned counsel for the petitioner whether he was in a position to state anything on those two points, I he expressed his inability to do so.
3. It appears that declarant Muhammad Ishaque, grandfather of the petitioner, had transferred certain lands by way of gift to the petitioner under Martial Law Regulation 115. The transfer as confirmed by the Land Commis--sioner, Sind.
4. Subsequently Martial Law Regulation 115 was amended by Sind Ordinance No. XIV of 1972, and the effect of the amendment in paragraph 7 of Martial Law Regulation 115 was that gifts to non-heirs other than those speci--fied in the Ordinance was declared as void ab initio. T he amendment was made retrospective as from the date the original Martial Law Regulation 115 was first promulgated.
5. The result obviously was that by operation of law the gift in favour of the petitioners stood void rib initio.
6. Nevertheless the Laud Commissioner by his order dated the 19th of Octo--ber, 1972 reviewed the order of confirmation, and vacated it. On appeal the Chie:' Land Commissioner maintained the order of the Land Commis--sioner. The petitioner, therefore, approached the High Court on a Consti--tution petition, but it was dismissed. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
7. Mr. Wajihuddin, learned Advocate appearing in support of the petitioner has advanced the following contentions:---
(1) The order cancelling the confirmation of gift is bad inasmuch as no notice was given to the petitioner-donee ;
(2) The said amending Ordinance XIV of 1972 is ultra vires the Consti--tution because the Ordinance contravened Articles 2 and 7 and Funda--mental Rights Nos. 20 and 21 of the Interim Constitution.
(3) Rule 10 of the Sind Land Reforms Rules, 1972, was ultra vires Martial Law Regulation 115.
8. As may have been noticed already the gift stood void by operation of law, and as such it was neither necessary to exercise the power of review under rule 10 of the Sind Law Reforms Rules, 1972, nor to give any notice to the donee. This being so contention No. 3 (toes not call for adjudication. It may, however, be added that the donor had been given notice and the petitioner, too, was served with a notice in connection with the review proceedings.
9. As regards contention No, 2 we may state that on the anology of the decision in PLD 1975 SC 397, the amendment in question did not violate Fundamental Rights embodied in Articles 20 and 21 of the Interim Constitu--petition corresponding to Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
10. There is no substance in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed.