' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.-In this Constitutional petition the order, dated 26th October, 1976 of the Federal Land Commission is challenged by the petitioners. On the basis of the report of the inspection team of the Federal Land Commission, the case of the petitioners was re-opened in suo motu revision paragraph 29 of M. L. R. 115 of the Federal Land Commission. The contention of the inspection team was that the Land Commissioner Sind bad wrongly validated the alienation by way of gifts made by petitioner No, 1, the declarant, in favour of his widowed and unmarried sisters.
The Officer-on-Special Duty, Federal Land Commission, by the impugned order dated 26-10-1976 declared all the gifts made by petitioner No, I in favour of his mother and sisters as void. It was firstly observed by the Federal Land Commission that the mutation had been made on the basis of a statement of petitioner No, 1, the donor, on 14-5-1970 in the book of statement whereas it should have been recorded in the "Dakhil-Kharij" Register, which had replaced the book of statement and that the gift statement recorded in the book of statement was found to be the last one on the book of statement. Secondly it was found by the Federal Land Commission that neither the acceptance of gifts by the donees nor change of possession was evidenced from the entries of the revenue record. It was further held by the Federal Land Commission that in so far as widowed and unmarried sisters of petitioner No, I were concerned, the record had shown that they had not been deprived of their due share in the inheritance in the ancestral land on the death of their father. We have heard Mr. Hiranand, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Nasrullah Awan, who has appeared on behalf of the official respondents.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the gifts' statement was properly recorded in the book of statement and the "Dakhil-Kharij" Register had not been introduced in the area in question and in any case the mutation had been effected on 14-5-1970 much before the introduction of the land reforms through M. L. R. 115 in the country and as the mutation had not been doubted by the Federal Land Commission, the gifts statement recorded on the book of statement could not be doubted. It was further argued that in the village Form XV of deh Aram there were ten more entries in the concerned register after the mutation entry of the gifts made by petitioner No, 1 and the last such entry was recorded on 22-1-1971 that is much before 11-9-1972 when M. L. R. 115 was promulgated. It was further argued that the finding of the Federal Land Commission that on the death of the father of the petitioners the mother and the sisters of petitioner No, 1 had received by way of inheritence their due shares under Muslim Law is not supported by the record which shows that after the death of the father, the entire land was mutated in the name of petitioner No, 1 by way of inheritance and this, according to the learned counsel, shows that the mother and the sisters did not receive their due share under Muslim Law in the lands in question on the death of the father of petitioner No,
1. It was then argued that in so far as the revenue record relating to possession is concerned, as only shares in the survey numbers had been gifted by the petitioner No, 1 in favour of the other petitioners and petitioner No, 1 remained the main "khatedar", the revenue record as regards the possession, shows the petitioner to be in possession as main "khatedar".
3. The Revenue record is not before us and although copies of certain record have been filed on behalf of the petitioners in this Court, we are of the view that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners can only be dealt with properly in the presence of the record. As the matter had been reopened in suo motu revision by the Federal Land Commission it was expected that the order in revision passed by the Federal Land Commission referred to all the relevant Revenue records which apparently has not been done in the present case. In our view, this is a matter where the case should be remanded to the Federal Land Commission.
4. The impugned order, dated 26-10-1976 of the Federal Land Commission is set aside, as it has not taken into consideration the entire Revenue records. The case is remanded to the Federal Land Commission to decide the matter afresh after giving notice to the petitioners and after considering all the relevant Revenue record. There will be no order as to cost.