' Nasir Aslam Zahid, J.-- In this petition the petitioners, wife and minor son of declarant Rais Ali Nawaz Khan, have challenged the order, dated 27th December,1976 passed by the Officer-on- Special Duty, Federal Land Commission, in suo motu revision exercising powers under paragraph 29 of M.L.R.
115. The alienations of gifts made by the deceased declarant Ali Nawaz in favour of his wife and minor son of agricultural lands in Deh Jamraro. Taluka Sinjhor, had been declared to be void by the Officeron-Special Duty by order, dated 27th December,1976. According to the Federal Land Commission, the alienations, by way of gifts in Deh Jamrao, Taluka Sinjhoro made by the deceased declarant in favour of the two petitioners appeared to be suspicious. This finding was based on the following observations of the Federal Land Commission:-- "The statement was recorded on new book of statement which was neither sealed nor paged. The mutation entry was made in V.F.VII instead of Register Dhakil-Kharij, which was introduced in the Taluka. The transfer of possession which is one of the essentials of a valid gift was also not evidenced from the record before the crucial date i,e, 20th December, 1971. For these reasons I am clear in my mind that the alienations did not take during the crucial period but were managed by accommodating the ingenuine entries in the revenue records."
' We have heard Mr. Allah Dino Memon, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Nasrullah Awan, learned counsel for the official respondents.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Federal Land Commission did not refer to the other revenue records which supported the case of the petitioner that the gifts had been made by the deceased declarant in favour of the petitioners on 17th November,1970, much before the introduction of the land reforms through M.L.R.115. Reliance was placed on a certified copy of Form VII which shows that after 17th November,1970 several other mutations were also recorded in the same register and that there is a note, dated 5th May,1971 of Mukhtiar-kar, Sinjhoro, that with effect from that date no entry was to be made in Form VII, as orders of the higher authorities had then been received to the effect that entries were to be made in the "Dakhil-Kharij"
Register. According to the learned counsel, the other entries in the Register of Form VII before and after the entries in favour of the petitioners have apparently not been doubted and the reason for suspicion given by the Federal Land Commission that the mutation entry made in village Form VII instead of "Dakhil-Kharij" Register is of no consequence as till 5th May,1971 entries were being made about transfers of lands in village Form VII and entries were ordered to be made in the "Dakhil- Kharij" Register after 5th May,1971, as in Taluka Sinjhoro orders to that effect had been received then.
It was, therefore, contended that the mutation on 17th November,1970 could not be doubted. As regards possession, it was argued that delivery of possession in so far as minor son was concerned was not necessary and in the case of petitioner No,1, the wife of the declarant, the fact that they were living together coupled with the fact that mutation had been effected in her favour would raise the presumption that possession had been delivered to petitioner No,1 of the lands gifted by the declarant to her.
' As regards delivery of possession, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. In so far as petitioner No,2 is concerned, he is a minor and it is not necessary in the case of a minor donee that the donor, who is the father, should hand over possession of the gifted property to the minor son. Further, as regards petitioner No,1, it may be observed that she is wife of the declarant and if mutation has been effected in her name and the gift statement also shows that the possession had been delivered, it will be presumed that the possession had been delivered to the donee-wife.
3. However, as regards the genuineness of the gifts statement and mutation entries made on 17th November, 1970, the reasons given for doubting such gift statement by the Federal Land Commission are not sufficient. The impugned order dated 27th December, 1976 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Federal Land Commission for fresh decision according to law after giving notice to the petitioners. The Federal Land Commission should peruse and consider all the relevant record including daily book in day Form IX, other entries made prior to and after the two entries in the record of rights made in favour of the petitioners and other relevant records to test the genuineness of the entries made on 17th November,1970 in favour of the petitioners. In this context the Federal Land Commission will also find out whether at the time the entries had been made in favour of the petitioners in the record of rights, "Dakhil-Kharij" Register had already been introduced in Taluka Sinjhoro. This will be an additional factor to test the genuineness of the mutations in favour of the petitioners.
' There will be no order as to costs.