' This is a revision under paragraph 29 of M. L. R. 115 against the order dated 8-1-1985 passed by the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners against Land Commissioner Lahore Division's order dated 7-1-1984, which had held sale of 476-17 Kanals of land in Deh Lalupur, Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara by respondent No, 1, Noor Samand in favour of his sons (respondents No, 2 to 8) through a registered sale-deed sanctioned vide Mutation No, 100 of 31-7-1975 as being in violation of the provisions of paragraph 24 of M. L. R.
115.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that respondent No, 1, Noor Samand held land measuring 506 Kanals 6 Marlas in Deh Lalupur, Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara out of which he sold. 19 Kanals 8 Marlas to the petitioners Haji Makhdoom Ali, Walayat Ali and Yousaf Ali vide Mutation No, 97 sanctioned on 31-1-1975, 476 Kanals 17 Marlas of land to his sons (respondents No, 2 to 8) through registered sale-deed No, 730 on 5-5-1975 which was sanctioned vide Mutation No, 100, dated 31-7- 1975, and 9 Kanals 18 Marlas to one Shahbaz son of Mirza Khan through registered sale-deed No, 971, dated 18-6-1975 sanctioned vide Mutation No 101 of 31-7-1975. Six years later Noor Samand, respondent No, 1 himself moved an application before the Tehsildar Depalpur pointing out that the sales made by him in 1975 had contravened the provisions of M. L. R. 115 and, therefore, should be declared void by a review of the mutation orders. These review proceedings, which had first been permitted by the Collector were subsequently dropped by the Tehsildar Depalpur vide his order dated 15-6-1983 when the present petitioners Makhdoom Ali and others, who were subsequent purchasers from respondents Nos. 2 to 8, successfully challenged the grant of permission for the review. Noor Samand, respondent No, 1 then filed appeals against the various orders dropping the review proceedings but he failed even at the highest level of the Board of Revenue who finally vide their order dated 26-10-1983 dismissed his petition in limine. Subsequently, through a miscellaneous application dated 13-10-1983, respondent No, 1, Noor Samand shifted the forum to the Land Commission by applying to the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab who sent the application to Land Commissioner, Lahore for disposal in accordance with law. The Land Commissioner Lahore, vide the impugned order dated 7-1-1984, held Mutation No, 100 in violation of the provisions of M. L. R. 115 and ordered that this mutation be reviewed. An appeal against this order filed by Muhammad Sharif and all the other sons of Noor Samand, respondent No, 1, before the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Lahore, was dismissed by the ACLC on merits but without hearing the other parties concerned by his order dated 4-2-1984. A time-barred revision petition against A. C. L. C's. Order dated 4-2-1984 before the Federal Land Commission was rejected in !Inane on grounds of limitation vide order dated 6-11-1984. Thereafter the present petitioners filed an appeal against the Land Commissioner Lahore's order dated 7-1-1984 before the Chief Land Commissioner which was dismissed as being incompetent vide the impugned order dated 8-1- 1985.
3. Counsels for all the parties were heard. Counsel for the petitioners submitted in sum that the whole litigation in this matter started by the respondent No,
1. Noor Samand was basically mala fide, as after himself selling his lands to his sons, who in turn. Sold it to the present petitioners, respondent No, 1 six years later sought, through the present litigation, to deprive the lawful owners of the land on the technical ground that his own act in selling the land originally was illegal as it was in violation of the provisions of paragraph 24 of M. L. R.
115. The counsel further contended that apart from the mala fides of the respondents in the matter, the land revenue authorities, and subsequently the land commission authorities, had also continued, against the principles of natural justice, to decide the matter without any notice to the present petitioners who are legal owners of the land in question. He elaborated this by saying that respondent No, 1 Noor Samand's miscellaneous application dated 13-10-1983 before the C. L. C.
Punjab was heard and decided by the Land Commissioner, Lahore vide his order dated 7-1-1984 without hearing the present petitioners who had purchased the land in question from the respondents Nos. 2 to 8. The Land Commission Authorities did not even question the credentials of respondent No, 1 in filing the petition as at that time he was not one of the concerned parties since he did not own a single Marla of the land in question according to the revenue record. The fact that this whole exercise was a deliberate fraud and collusion was further indicated by the filing of a time-barred revision before the Federal Land Commission by the respondents 9 months after the date of the order. This, according to the counsel, was done deliberately as a red herring designed to confuse the land commission authorities by giving the impression that the matter had been decided finally and definitively at the highest level viz. The Federal Land Commission. Anticipating the objection that the petitioners had no loop standi in the matter, since they were not a party to the proceedings before the Land Commissioner as a result of which the impugned order dated 7-1- 1984 was passed, the counsel cited the case PLJ 1976 Lah. 108 in support of his contention that a person, though not a party to the original proceedings, can file an appeal provided he shows that his interest in a property has been adversely affected. Even if a person was not made a party to the original suit or proceeding he should be permitted to challenge an order in appeal if it affects him adversely (PLD 1969 SC 65). As regards the impugned order of the Chief Land Commissioner, Lahore dated 8-1-1985 the counsel submitted that the CLC should have decided the appeal on merits and not on technical grounds of non-competence and that he should not have been misled by the red herring of the so-called final decision of. The Federal Land Commission. Mere technicalities unless offering immovable hurdles should not be allowed to defeat the ends of justice (PLD 1976 SC 159) and any system which by giving effect to the form and not to the substance defeats substantive rights is defective to that extent (PLD 1963 SC 382). On merits of the case the counsel argued that the question whether the sale in question was or was not in violation of paragraph 24 of M. L. R. 115 had been decided by the highest land revenue Court viz. The Board of Revenue vide their order dated 26-10-1983 and this order was not ex parte but was made after hearing all the parties concerned. This order of the highest revenue authority had taken legal effect and in pursuance thereof certain rights had been created in favour of the petitioners and it could not subsequently be withdrawn or rescinded to the detriment of those rights even under the principle of locus poenitentiae PLD 1969 SC 407. The miscellaneous application dated 13-10-1983 filed by Noor Samand before the Land Commission authorities_ should have been dismissed summarily as Noor Samand was not an aggrieved party in the matter at that date, because he did not own a single Marla of the land in question. The counsel cited PLD 1978 SC 220 to show that indeed a discretion is vested in this behalf in the. Courts to be judicially exercised in proper cases in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings to shorten litigation and to do complete justice between she parties and mould the relief according to the altered circumstances in the larger interests of justice. Finally the counsel, relying on the maxim audi alteram partem, contended that no order affecting the rights of a party can be passed without an opportunity of hearing to that party even where there is no express provision in law as to notice to such party and further that the maxim is not confined to Courts only but to all proceedings by whomsoever held which may effect the person or property or other right of the parties concerned in the dispute (PLD 1964 SC 411).
4. Counsels for the respondents in their arguments contended that the petitioners in the capacity of vendees were not concerned in a case where the legality of the original sale itself was in question. They also challenged the correctness of the various figures of sales of land quoted by the petitioners in their petition. They contended that the Land Commission authorities had exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to violation of para. 24 of M. L. R. 115 and that the land revenue authorities were not competent to deal with this question. In support they cited the case PLD 1982 Rev.
14.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties appearing before me and the points made by them. I find the order of Land Commissioner dated 7-1-1984 defective for several reasons. It was not passed in exercise of any jurisdiction vested in him under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 on the basis of any revision or appeal under that Regulation moved before him or even in exercise of suo motu jurisdiction but on the basis of a miscellaneous application referred to him for disposal by the Chief Land Commissioner. The mover of that application, respondent Noor Samand, had no locus standi in the matter since neither he nor his sons owned the land in question on that date, apart from the fact that he was obviously estopped from taking the position that he himself had violated the provisions of para. 24 of M. L. R. 115 in selling the land to his sons. Finally the order of the Land Commissioner was passed without notice to and without hearing the most important party in the matter viz. The petitioners who were vendees in possession of the land in question. The argument of the counsel for the respondents that violation of the provisions of para. 24 of M. L. R. 115 was a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the land commission authorities and that the land revenue authorities had no jurisdiction in the matter is not acceptable. The case PLD 1982 Rev. 14 cited by them in support of this argument has no relevance to this issue. Any alienation of land in violation of para. 24 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 is ab initio void and can be declared and regarded as such by whatever authority at whatever level happens to become cognizant of such a transaction. 1 also find the order dated 8-1-1985 of the Chief Lands Commissioner Punjab against which the petitioners have moved this revision petition as defective, since an appeal against a defective order, in this case the Land Commissioner Lahore's order dated 7-1-1984 for reasons mentioned her in this paragraph, cannot be dismissed as being incompetent. The Chief Land Commissioner's reference to the Federal Land Commission's order dated 6-11-1984 is obviously not relevant because that order was in respect of a different order (ACLC Punjab's order dated 4-2-1984), was between different parties (Respondents Nos. 2 to 8 v. Respondent No, 1) and, finally, was NOT an order on merits but on the point of limitation.
6. 1, therefore, accept the revision petition and declare the order dated 8-1-1985 passed by the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab and the order dated 7-1-1984 passed by the Land Commissioner, Lahore as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Judgment in this case was reserved when it was last heard on 14-2-1985. This order should, therefore, be communicated to all concerned.