' These cases have been remanded by the Supreme Court of Pakistan vide their order dated 17-12- 1984 in Civil Appeals Nos. 121 of 1977, 205 of 1980 and 379 of 1980, for decision afresh on merits of the transfers made by the land-owners after affording full opportunity to the parties to produce additional evidence if they so desired. Notices were accordingly issued to the respondents and the vendees under paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 in exercise of suo motu revisional powers of the Federal Government for the purpose of satisfying itself about the correctness, legality or propriety of the orders made by the land reforms authorities in relation to the determination of the respondents' holdings and the transfers made by them. Since all these cases arise from a single order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the points of law and the nature of facts involved are similar, I would dispose of these cases by this single order.
2. Counsels for the respondents in all these cases raised certain preliminary points of law questioning the jurisdiction of the Federal Land Commission in the matter. The counsel argued that if they succeeded in establishing that the Federal Land Commission had no jurisdiction in the matter the cases could be decided on the basis of such a finding alone which would preclude detailed hearing on the facts relating to transfers of lands made by the respondents.
3. It was contended on behalf of the respondents in all the cases that under section 25 of the Land Reforms Act (Act II) of 1977 all proceedings pending before the Federal Land Commission stood abated on the commencement of that Act. Such proceedings could be saved from abatement only if the Federal Government directed otherwise in a case or a class of cases. The Federal Government Notification No, II-1977/LR/1-78, dated 23-9-1978 directing that such proceedings shall not abate was a negation of section 25 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977. Subordinate legislation like a Government notification framed in pursuance of a provision in a statute could not take away or abridge a right conferred by the statute itself. It was conceded that section 32 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 did empower the Federal Government to make suitable orders for purpose of removing any difficulty which may arise in giving effect to any provision of that Act but this power was circumscribed by section 32 itself to the making of an order which was "not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act". It was argued that since the Land Reforms Act, 1977 clearly and unequivocally extinguished all proceedings pending before the Federal Land Commission at the time of the commencement of the Act, the Government notification, in directing that proceedings shall not abate, was clearly inconsistent with the provisions of Land Reforms Act, 1977. The counsels contended that the Federal Government's power under section 25 of Land Reforms Act, 1977 to "direct otherwise" could be used by the Government only in a case or a class of cases whereas the Federal Government's notification in question was of a general nature and had directed that proceedings in all cases pending before the Federal Land Commission on the commencement of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 shall not stand abated. The notification was, therefore, according to the counsel, ultra vires of the Land Reforms Act, 1977.
4. I have considered the arguments on this point. The Federal Government Notification No, II- 1977/LR/1-78, dated 23-9-1978 has been explicitly issued "in exercise of powers conferred by section 25 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 (Act II of 1977)". The question of the notification having been issued under section 32 of the Act for removal of difficulties does not, therefore, arise and the argument on the point is not relevant. The argument that under section 25 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 the Federal Government could revive only a particular case or a class of cases while the notification in question was general in nature and was therefore, ultra vires of the provisions of section 25 of the Act, appears to be based on the premise that on the commencement of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 proceedings only under paragraph 29 of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 were 'pending' before the Federal Land Commission and had abated under section 25 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977. In fact this is not so. On the commencement of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 (Act II of 1977), apart from some unclassified cases under other provisions of land reforms laws, the following classes of proceedings were pending before the Federal Land Commission, namely: (i) under paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M. L. R. 115) ; (ii) under paragraph 17 of the Land Reforms Baluchistan (Pat Feeder Canal) Regulation, 1972 (M. L. R. 117) ; (iii) under paragraph 6 of Dir and Swat Regulation, 1972 (M. L. R. 122), (iv) under paragraph 5-B of Dir and Swat Regulation, 1972 (M. L. R. 123) ;
(v) under paragraph 6 of the Distribution of Property (Chitral) Regulation, 1974 (Regulation No II of 1974) ; and (vi) under paragraph 6 of the Settlement of Disputes (Chitral) Regulation, 1974 (Regulation No, III of 1974). The Federal Government, through the notification in question, had revived cases relating to paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 only. Cases under the o:her laws cr even cases under other provisions of the Land A Reforms Regulation, 1972 have not been revived. Cases under paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 were only a class of cases which have been revived and this act of the Federal Government, therefore, is not ultra vires of the provisions of section 25 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977.
5. Counsel for the respondents Muhammad Jafar Khan Leghari and others contended that the impugned order was passed not in exercise of the Federal Government's suo mom powers under paragraph 29 of the M. L. R. 115 but on an application by Muhammad Mewa son of Yar Muhammad, Muhammad Moosa son of Kora and Ghulam Rasool son of Ghulam Haider which was treated as a revision petition under paragraph 29. This application, however, was later withdrawn and also found to be a bogus document. Since the revision application itself did not exist, the counsel argued, therefore, there was nothing pending-before the Federal Land Commission.
6. On similar grounds the counsel for Farooq Ahmed Leghari and others contended that case against his clients had been initiated by an application from Nab: Bakhsh son of Sawan dated 17-7- 1974 which was treated as a revision petition vide orders of the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, dated 24-7-1974 recorded on the application itself. The counsel contended that the revision petition was badly time-barred because it had been made against the Additional Chief Land Commissioner's order dated 17-7.1973 i,e, 10 months after the order sought to be revised in the case of Mst. Sohela Begum was passed and one year nine months and 5 days after the Land Commissioner Multan's order, dated 16/25-8-1972 in all the other cases. Paragraph 29 of the M. L. R.
115 under which the Federal Government exercised such revisioual powers was very clear that record of any case or proceeding shall not be called on the application of any aggrieved person made after the expiry of 60 days from the date of such order.
7. The counsel for respondent Ashiq Muhammad Khan Mazari contended that in his case the Lahore High Court had held that the order impugned before it was patently without jurisdiction since the proceedings in that case were initiated on an application presented by one Sidho Chongli when the period of limitation for calling up of the record under paragraph 29 had already expired on the date that Sidho Chongli moved in the matter. (Paragraph 47 PLD 1977 Lah. 461). The counsel argued that the Supreme Court an appeal against this order made before it by the Federal Government had not upset the decision of the Lahore High Court on the point of limitation as it had addressed itself only to the question of basis on the part of the Chairman Federal Land Commission. This being the position, the Lahore High Court's decision that the Federal Land Commission had no jurisdiction to pass an order in this case on the ground of limitation had in fact been upheld and- therefore, the present proceedings were also without jurisdiction.
8. 1 have considered these arguments and I agree with the points made by the counsel in paras. 5, 6 and 7 above. I, however, find that the Supreme Court in its decision has expressly directed the Federal Land Commission "for decision afresh on merits of transfers made by the landowners". The phrase "decision afresh on merits of the transfers" would appear, without going into points of law, jurisdiction, limitation etc. In respect of each transfer, to call for findings of facts in respect of each transfer in order to see whether alienations of land claimed to have been made by the declarants in these cases were valid for the purpose of determining their holdings under paragraph 8 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. I would, therefore; proceed accordingly.
9. In cases No, SMR 1(20)/F L C/85 etc. State v. Ashiq Muhammad Khan Mazari, Wall Muhammad Mazari and others, the order of Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, dated 23-11-1973 (PLD 1974 Rev.
29) has gone into the facts of each transfer of land in great detail and has given findings of facts on whether the consideration paid for the transfers was adequate, whether the vendees were in control and management of the area, whether possession had in fact passed to the vendees, whether the vendees were paying land revenue and other charges in respect of tha alienated lands and whether they were receiving rent for the said lands. These findings are summarised below :-
(i) The price of land purchased by the three vendee companies was adequate and had been paid to the vendors and transactions of sale appeared to be genuine.
(ii) In the very first harvest after the sale transactions i,e, Rabi 1972 the companies were in possession of the land purchased by them from the appellants (respondents before me) and they started to manage it. They got their lands separated from the joint Khatas of the Mazari family and some land was exchanged by them for purposes of consolidation and better management through subsequent Mutations Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35.
(iii) Land Revenue for Rabi 1972 onwards was paid by each company in respect of land purchased by it. Khasra Girdawaris show that the vendee companies have been receiving their share of Batai from the tenants from Rabi 1972 and the amount which accrued to each company from the harvest of Rabi 1972 was duly credited in the booi,s of each company.
10. Federal Land Commission's Inspection Team representative made the following objections during the hearing : (i) all the mutations e.g. Mutations numbers 22 to 27 and 30 and 31 were attested after the crucial date of 20-12-1971 ; (ii) possession of land in respect of Mutations Nos. 30 and 31 had not changed until Karif 1972 according to the Khasra Girdawari ; and (iii) that the vendee companies consisted of friends and members of the Mazari family. Date of formal attestation of the mutation is not material for purposes of determining possession/ownership over the said piece of land on a particular date for the purpose of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 provided that such possession/ownership is established from other evidence produced. There is sufficient evidence, which has not been controverted, according to the findings of the Chief Land Commissioner to indicate transfers of land before the crucial date in respect of mutations bearing Nos. 22 to 27, 30 and 31, which were attested subsequently. In respect of Mutations Nos. 30 and 31 the Chief Land Commissioner has given the findings of facts that possession was changed w,e,f, Rabi 1972 i,e, the very first harvest after the date of purchase by the vendees. As regards the objection regarding the vendee companies consisting of friends and members of the Mazari family, this by itself cannot be valid objection except in so far as it may raise doubts about the bona fides of the transactions. The criteria for determining the bona fides of a particular transaction are laid down in Explanation III of paragraph 7 in the Land Reforms Regulation 1972.
According to these criteria the Chief Land Commissioner has found that the transactions were bona fide and I have not come across any reason to disagree with the Chief Land Commissioner's findings. 1, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the Chief Land Commissioner's order dated 23- 11-1973 which was resuscitated as a result of the Supreme Court decision.
11. In cases No, S M R 1(18)/F L C/85 etc. State v. Muhammad Jaffar Khan Leghari and others' three orders of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore. Dated 21 6-1974 in appeals filed by the respondents bearing Nos. R.
0. A. Nos. 521, 522, 523, 524 and 525 of 1973-74 contain detailed examination of all the aspects of the sale transactions in question as also findings of facts on examination of tlie relevant revenue record and other evidence produced before him. I have also myself examined the revenue record produced before me in respect of all these transactions and find no reason to disagree with the findings of facts in the Additional Chief Land Commissioner's orders. The representative of the Federal Land Commission's Inspection Team raised certain objections which were largely based on entries in the Khasra Girdawari for the harvests of Kharif 1971 and Rabi 1972 according to which possession of land continued to remain with the vendors. However, examination of the relevant Jamabandis showed that the transactions had been reflected therein. There is a presumption of truth attaching to entries in the Jamabandi which is the basic record of rights and which must take precedence over Khasra Girdawari which is only a crop inspection register with no presumption of truth attaching to entries in it. I do not, therefore, see any reason to disagree with the findings of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner Punjab in his orders dated 21-6-1974 mentioned earlier and decline to interfrere with these orders which were resuscitated as a result of the Supreme Court decision.
12. In cases S M R 1(19)/F L C/85 etc. State v. Sardar Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari and others 38 alienations of land made by respondents/ declarants were validated by the Land Commissioner Multan vide his orders dated 14-6-1972, 16-8-1972 and 25-8-1972 and by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab vide his order dated 7-7-1973. Out of these validated alienations objections were raised against the following transactions by the Federal Land Commission's Inspection Team during the hearing :- {{TABLE}} Sr. Name of Number and Date of Date of Name of transferor Area No, village nature of entry attesta- transferred mutation tion K M
1. Darkhast 295/oral 4-2-71 30-3-71 Sikandar Khan son 231-18 Jamal exchange of Imam Bukhsh.
Khan Darmiani
2. -do- 296/oral 4-2-71 30-3-71 Sardar Farooq 231-18 sale Ahmad Khan, Farida Begum, Najma Begum, Ismat Jehan.
3. -do 298/oral 12-2-71 30-3-71 -do- 1596-16 sale
4. Chehal 326/oral Not known; 28-10-71 Sardar Farooq 1318-1 Chahan exchange mutation Ahmad Khan son of register not Sardar Muhammad available. Khan. {{TABLE}} ' The land revenue record in respect of the above transactions was carefully scrutinised and counsel for the respondents were heard in respect of the objections raised in respect of these transactions by the Federal Land Commission's Inspection Team. These transactions and the objections raised in respect thereof are discussed and decided in paragraphs 13 to 22 below.
13. (1) Mutation No, 295, village Darkhast Jamal Khan Darmiani: Exchange of 340 Kanal 9 Marlas with 231 Kanals 18 Marlas.
(2) Mutation No, 296, village Darkhast Jamal Khan Darmiani: Sale of 231 Kanals 18 Marlas for Rs, 35,645.
' Objections raised by the Federal Land Commission's Inspection Team against these transactions were that the respondents acquired an area measuring 231 Kanals 18 Marlas in exchange from Sikandar Khan on 4-2-1971 and on the same date they transferred the same land to Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Ayub, sons of Sikandar Khan vide Mutation No, 296 for a consideration of Rs, 25,645. Furthermore, possession of the land in question was not changed until Rabi 1972 according to the Khasra Girdawari and, therefore, the transfer was hit by paragraph 7(1) (a) under which it was deemed too he void. The first objection obviously questions the bona fides of the transactions implying that the transactions were mala fides and were made only with a view to defeating the purposes of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 by manoeuvring to take out the area in question from the holding of the declarant before the crucial date, and that, therefore, these were void under paragraph 7(b) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. In determining whether the transactions were bona fide or otherwise for purposes of paragraph 7(b), Explanation III in paragraph 7 itself prescribes the criteria which shall be taken into consideration by the Federal Land Commission. The relevant land revenue record was scrutinised and the counsel for the respondents was heard in order to determine whether the transactions stand upto the criteria regarding their bona fides under Explanation III of paragraph 7. As a result of this examination I find that both the mutations were entered in the Mutation Register serial wise on 4-2-1971 with reference to Reports Nos. 224 and 225 of the Roznamcha Waqiati. These were verified by the Qanoongo on 22-2-1971 and 30-3.1971 respectively and attested by the Tehsiidar on 30-3-1971 with no signs of any interpolation or back dating etc. The attestation/ sanctioning of these mutations was done by the Tehsildar in the normal course on a regular tour alongwith attestationisanctioning of a number of other mutations (e. g. Nos. 297 and 308) pertaining to various landowners other than the respondents in village Darkhawast Jamal Khan Darmiani on 30-3-1971. Zila Council fee payable in respect of the sale transaction was paid on 9-2-1971 according to the entry in Column No, 15 of the Mutation No, 296 which also shows the number of the receipts. The respondents' copies of the receipts were also shown by the counsel for the respondents during the hearing. The Zila Council fee payment could not have been back-dated and therefore, constitutes irrefutable evidence of the genuineness of the sale transaction. It is admitted by the Inspection Team that Dhal Bach from Kharif 1971 onwards was in the name of the transferees but that before this crop it was in the name of transferor. Kharif 1971 was the earliest crop for which the Dhal Bach could have been in the name of the transferees because, the mutations having been sanctioned on 30-3.1971, Dhal Bach for Rabi 1971 could not possibly have been in the name of the transferees,
14. The counsel for the respondents further argued that Mutations Nos. 295 and 296 have to be considered together and that the simultaneous exchange and sale of the land in question on the same day (30-3-1971) was a legally permissible method resorted to at the request of Sikandar Khan with whom the land was excnanged vide Mutation No, 295 and his sons Munamrnad Azam and Muhammad Ayub to whom the same land was sold vide Mutation No, ,296 in order to save from pre-emption 'Sikandar Khan's acquisition of 340 Kanals 9 Marlas of land from the respondent Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari. In support of this argument the counsel cited a ruling of the West Pakistan. High Court (PLD 196 W. P. Pesh. 62) that pre-emption can be defeated by legitimate deices like exchanges and gifts and that if the law exempts exchange from pre-emption it is lawful for a person to resort to exchange in order to save his land from pre-emption. Such resort has also been approved by the Supreme Court in the case reported in PLD 1967 SC 153.
15. As regards the other objection that the relevant Khasra Girdawari does not show change of possession in the names of the transferees until Rabi 1972, I have examined the Khasra Girdawari of the village for the period Kharif 1968 to Rabi 1972 and find that there was no cultivation in 55 out of 60 Khasra numbers affected by Mutation No, 295 and that, therefore, there was no question of making any entry relating to possession in respect of such Khasra numbers. In respect of Khasra numbers 361/1, 361/17, 361/18, 361/24 and 394/16 which were cultivated, possession in the name of the cultivating tenants is shown from Kharif 1971 onwards and names of owners are not shown. I have also examined the standing record of rights of this village and find that while Jamabandis for the 4 years periods ending 1968-69 and 1971-72 were not prepared for this village on account of the village being under consolidation operations, Mutation Nos. 295, 296 and 298 are entered in red ink in the last previous Jamabandi (1964-65) in accordance with the prescribed procedure. I have also examined the next following Jamabandi (1975.76) .For the village in which all the transactions have been incorporated with reference to Mutation numbers 295, 296 and 298 which according to the Jamabandi 1964-65 and according to the mutation register itself were made on 4-2-1971/12-2-1971 and attested on 30-3-1971. This is clear evidence in my view of the authenticity of the transactions as, under section 52 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, entries made in the record of rights in accordance with law shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor. No such presumption of truth attaches to entries in the Khasra Girdawari on which reliance has been placed by the Inspection Team in arriving at the conclusion that the transactions had not taken place before the crucial date.
16. The counsel for the respondents also submitted that the order of Chairman, Federal Land Commission dated 26-5-1975 had held Mutation No, 295 void on the ground inter alia that it involved exchange of unequal areas viz. 340 Kanals 9 Marlas against 231 Kanals 18 Marlas and was therefore, invalid under paragraph 11(2) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The counsel submitted that paragraph 11(2) related to inter-change of areas between members of a family for purposes of land consolidation and had therefore, no relevance for or bearing on the validity or otherwise of the impugned exchange mutations. If, the counsel continued, the Chairman F. L. C.'s order, while citing paragraph 11(2), had in fact in mind provisions of sub-proviso (iii) of the second proviso to clause (b) of paragraph 7(1), it had completely mistaken the law on the point. The correct position of law was that if the areas involved in the exchange transaction were the same or substantially the same in terms of P. I. Us. The Commission had to hold the transaction valid. If, however, the areas involved in the exchange were not equal or substantially equal then the transaction lost the protection of sub-proviso (iii) of the second proviso under which the Commission was bound to hold the transaction valid with the result that the Commission had. To decide the matter on the basis of its general power under clause (b), viz, treating the transaction as void unless satisfied that it was bona fide. Such a transaction could be held to be void only if the Commission was not satisfied about its bona fides and in determining whether or not it was bona fide the Commission shall, inter alia, take into consideration the factors enumerated in Explanation III o to paragraph 7 according to which the transaction in question was bona fide transaction as argued by the counsel earlier. While I am no bound to take into consideration the findings, and the reasoning behind' such findings, of the Federal Land Commission order dated 26-5-1975 which has been set aside by the Supreme Court and which therefore, legally does not exist, I have noted the arguments of the counsel for the respondents on this point and fully agree with the position. Of law submitted by him.
17. For reasons explained in paras. 13 to 16 above I am satisfied with the bona fides of the transactions covered by Mutations Nos. 295 and 296 and declare them valid under paragraph 7 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972.
18. (3) Mutation No, 298, village: Darkhawast Jamal Khan Darmiani: Sale of 1,596 Kanals 16 Marlas of land for Rs, 2,40,000.
This was a transaction of oral sale made jointly by respondents Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari, Farida Begum, Najma Begum and Mst. Ismat Jehan Begum in favour of Muhammad Khalid Khan, Muhammad Zubair Khan, Mst. Wasif Bibi and Mst. Shehla Bibi. Fedetial Land Commission's Inspection Team objection in respect of this transaction is that change of possession in favour of the transferees had not been shown in the Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 1971 and it was 'changed in Rabi 1972 after the promulgation of M. L. R. 115 and that therefore, the transfer is hit by paragraph 7(1)(b) of the Regulation Scrutiny of the relevant revenue record and submissions made by the counsel for the respondents regarding this transaction indicate that the circumstances in case of this transaction are almost identical with those in case of Mutations Nos. 295 and 296. The fact of the sale was reported by the Patwari on 12-2-1971 and finds mention in the Roznamcha Waqiati as Report No, 236 with no signs of interpolation Or back-dating etc. The transaction was entered serialwise in the Mutation Register on 12-2-1971 with reference to Report No, 236 of the Roznamcha.
The entry was verified by the Qanoongo on 22-2-1971 with no signs of interpolation or back-dating etc. In the Mutation Register and the mutation was sanctioned by the Tehsildar on 30-3-1971. The Tehsildar sanctioned a number of other Mutations (Nos. 297 and 308) alonawith Mutation No, 298 in village Darkhawast Jamal Khan Darnuani on 30-3-1971 in the normal course of a regular tour. The Zila Council fee in respect of this sale was paid on 29-3-1971 and the number and date of the receipt are mentioned in Column No, 15 of Mutation No, 298. A copy of the Zila Council receipt is also on the record and was produced during the hearing. Dhal Bach for Kharif 1971 shows that it was prepared in the name of the transferees. As already mentioned in paragraph 15 above, the Jamabandi entries in respect of this mutation vouch for the authenticity of the transaction. Scrutiny of Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 1971 shows that most of the area was 'not cultivated' with an entry of J indicating preparations for cultivation in Rabi 1972. These numbers are shown in possession of Muhammad Khalid Khan etc. In the Girdawari for Rabi 1972. The only cultivated fields in Kharif 1971 (e. g. Sq. 410 Kilas 11 to 25, Sq. 460 Kilas 1 to 10 and 12 to 25) are shown in the names of Muhammad Khalid Khan etc., transferees in Kharif 1971. In view of these facts I see no reason for doubting the bona fides of this transaction.
19. (4) Mutation No, 326, village Chehal Chahan: Exchange of 1,118 Kanals 1 Marla with 1,101 Kanals 4 Marlas in village Darkhawast Jamal Khan Gharbi belonging to lsmat Jehan Begum vide Mutation No, 1187.
' Federal Land Commission Inspection Team's objections in respect of this exchange transaction are that according to the Khasra Girdawari possession had not been changed upto Rabi 1972 and that Mutation No, 326 through which Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari exchanged his land measuring 1,118 Kanals 1 Marla in village Chehal Chahan with 1101 Kanals 4 Marlas belonging to Mst. Ismat Jehan in village Darkhawast Jamal Khan Gharbi should not be recognised even if it was otherwise valid because the reverse Mutation No, 1187 in village Darkhawast Jamal Khan Gharbi in the holding of Ismat Jehan was sanctioned after the crucial date i. e. 20-12-1971 and was, therefore, considered void and the area in question was not excluthd from her holding and that, therefore, the exchange was not completed before the crucial date.
20. Scrutiny of the revenue record showed that the fact of the exchange was reported by the Patwari on 28-10-1971 and found mention in Report No, 73 of the Roznamcha with no signs of interpolation, backdating etc. The Mutation Register of the village was not produced as it was reported to be with F. I. A. In connection with some investigation but an attested photocopy of the relevant entry in the Mutation Register was produced which showed that the entry relating to Mutation No, 326 was made on 28-10-1971. Attested copies of Mutation No, 327 was a.So examined and showed that an area of 1118 Kanals 1 Marla acquired by her through Mutation No, 326 was sold by Mst. Ismat Jehan to Parvaiz Hussain son of A. R. Sardar Hussain. An examination of the Jamabandi for 1970-71 also showed red ink entries in respect of Mutation No, 326 (exchange of 1,118- 1 with land in Darkhawast Jamal Khan Gharbi) and also in respect of Mutation 327 (sale), 328 (private partition) and 329 (Tamleek). Dha.1 Bach for Rabi 1972 for village Chehal Chahan was examined and it was found that the demand in respect of the Khasra numbers in question had been prepared in the names of Parvez Hussain and Shehryar Khan in whose names the land had been mutated through Mutations Nos. 328 and 329 as a result of partition and Tamleek after it had been sold to Parvez Hussain by Mst. Ismat Jehan through Mutation No, 327. This clearly shows that in so far as the respondent Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari is concerned he had given away possession of the land exchanged by him with Mst. Ismat Jehan through Mutation No, 326 before the crucial date. In view of this evidence I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the transaction incorporated in Mutation No, 326 of village Chehal Chahan.
21. I will now take up the submission of the Inspection Team that even if the Mutation No, 326 is held to be valid it should not be given full legal effect because the reverse Mutation No, 1187 of village Darkhawast Jamal Khan Gharbi was sanctioned after the crucial date i. e. 20-12-1971. Scrutiny of the relevant land revenue record in the light of the submissions of the counsel for the respondents show that Mutation No, 1187 of village Darkhawast Jamal Khan Gharbi was reported by the Patwari on 17-8.1971 and entered by him in Report No, 479 of the Roznamcha on the same date. The Patwari made the entry in the Mutation Register in respect of this exchange on 4-11-1971 and the reason for not attesting the mutation forthwith is given in Report No, 497 of the Roznamcha as the consolidation proceedings currently in operation in the village Darkhawast Jamal Khan Gharbi. The land given away in exchange by Farooq Ahmed Khan in village Chel Chehan in exchange to his mother through Mutation No, 326 which was sanctioned before the crucial date 20-12-1971 and was, therefore, perfectly valid, could not obviously form part of his holding on 20-12-1971. This land was sold on the same date i. e. 20-12-1971 by respondent Ismat Jehan Begum to Pervez Hussain through Mutation No, 327 (which has never been questioned at any stage). Therefore, this land could also not be counted towards the holding of lsmat Jehan Begum on 20-12-1971. As regards land measuring 1,101 Kanals 4 Marlas given in exchange by Ismat Jehan Begum to respondent Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari through Mutation No, 1187 this transaction cannot under law be given effect to for purposes of determining the holding of respondent Farooq Leghari as on 20-12-1971, and, therefore, was included in the holding of Ismat Jehan as on that date.
22. For reasons explained in paragraphs 20 and 21 I hold the alienation of 1,118 Kanals 1 Marla of land by respondent Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari through Mutation No, 326 as valid.
23. For reasons explained in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 and and on the basis of my findings in paragraphs 10, 11, 17, 18 and 22 ante, notices issued to the respondents under paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, are hereby vacated.