' Late Malik Rab Nawaz, the father of the two petitioners, made a declaration in respect of his holdings for the purposes of Land Reforms of 1972. The declaration was scrutinized and the gift made by the declarant to his wife and two sons was found to be in order. The Federal Land Commission however in exercise of the suo motu jurisdiction called for the record of the case.
Notices were given to the declarant and the donees to appear before the Federal Land Commission on 19-8-1976. They were, however, proceeded ex parte as they failed to appear. Mr. Abdul Qayyum, the learned Member, Federal Land Commission, after examining the record held that the gift in favour of the wife was in order but the gift made to the two sons was not so. He directed the Deputy Land Commissioner to recalculate the area to be resumed from the declarant in the light of the order dated 19-8-1976. This order was challenged in writ petition No,2776/77 and the order of the learned Member, Federal Land Commission dated 19-8-1976 was declared to be of no legal effect on 20-3-1978. It was held by the High Court that the service of notices upon the petitioners in the writ petition had not been proved and that the order thereby suffered from violation of the rules of natural justice. It was also observed that the order of a Single Member was without lawful authority as he was not competent to sit alone in view of the judgment in Ashiq Muhammad Mazari's case. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court when the question of competence of the Single Member was raised before it. The Federal Land Commission submitted that another opportunity of being heard could be given to the then respondents. This appeal was later on withdrawn on 22-4-1982 as a validating law was passed providing for a Single Member to decide the case on behalf of the Commission. In the meantime, however, a notice was given to the petitioners to appear before the Land Commission at Lahore on 7-2-1982. This order is in the following words:- "Notice to all concerned and call for the record for hearing at Lahore on 7-2-1982.
' The competence of the Federal Land Commission to rehear the revision petition was questioned on a number of grounds but Mr. Iqbal Masood, the learned senior Member, Federal Land Commission proceeded to decide the case afresh and has held vide his order dated 20-6-1982 that the gift in favour of the wife made by late Rab Nawaz was valid but it was invalid to the extent it related to his two sons, the present petitioners. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition.
2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the first round of litigation came to an end when the order of the Federal Land Commission dated 19-8-1976 was declared to be of no legal effect by the High Court on 20-3-1978 and the appeal against this order was dismissed as withdrawn by the Supreme Court on 22-4-1982. He has contended that the Federal Land Commission could not have entered upon the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction again as after 30- 11-1976 no records could be called for, in view of the third proviso to para. 29 of M.L.R. 115 of 1972. He insists that the record was called for again as is indicated by the notice given on 17-1-1982 thereby suggesting that the record which was called earlier had been sent back and could not be called again after 30-11-1976. He has also argued that even on merits the decision of the Federal Land Commission of 20-6-1982 was open to question as the learned Member has wrongly held that the father of the petitioners could not accept the gift on behalf of his two sons, the present petitioners.
3. There is no denying the fact that the record of this case was called for by the Federal Land Commission well before the crucial date of 30-11-1976, the suo motu revision itself having been disposed of in the first round on 19-8-1976. This order was declared to be of no legal effect by the High Court on grounds, firstly, of a Single Member's incompetence to decide the suo motu revision, and, secondly, of lack of opportunity of being heard to the petitioners by the Federal Land Commission. The learned counsel contends that this order not having directed the remand of the case to the competent authority amounts to closing the door as far as the Federal Land Commission is concerned. I am afraid, I am unable to accept this contention. Para. 29 of M.L.R. 115 gives authority to the Federal Land Commission to call for the record of any case which is either pending before any one of the authorities or has been decided by it. The second proviso to the paragraph, however, lays down that no order shall be passed under this paragraph revising or modifying an order affecting any person unless such person has been afforded an opportunity of being heard. In the present case an ex parte order was passed by Mr. Abdul Qayyum, Member, Federal Land Commission on 19-8-1976 and it was declared to be of no legal effect as Mr. Abdul Qayyum sitting singly was not competent to pass the order and also because the respondents in that case were not given an opportunity of being heard. The order of the High Court, therefore, nullifies the order of 19-8-1976 as it violated the second proviso to paragraph 29 of the MLR and also because the person who passed the order was not competent to do so. Thi does not mean, however, that the calling of the record by the Land Commission provided for in the main part of the paragraph was als without lawful authority.
4. As regards the reopening of the case, in my view it was not fresh exercise of suo motu jurisdiction, but continuously of the earlier proceedings. As discussed above, there are two distinct stages of para. 29; one is, the calling of record, and, the second is, the modifying of an existing order. The crucial date of 30-11-1976 does not affect the latter part. The order of 19-8-1976 relates to this part of the proceedings only. The declaration by the High Court that this order is ineffective, does not mean that the competent authority cannot now pass a proper order. The Federal Land Commission was prepared to give anothe opportunity of hearing when it went to Supreme Court to seek a judgment on the question of jurisdiction. This question was, however, settled by the legislature and for the opportunity of hearing another notice was given to the petitioners. In this background of the case, the words relating to calling of record, contained in the notice of 17-1-1982 do not indicate a second exercise of the suo motu jurisdiction, or calling for the records a second time.
5. As regards the merits of the case, the gift to the two petitioners has been objected to by the Federal Land Commission on the ground that while the gift could be accepted by Malik Rab Nawaz donor on behalf of his wife, it could not be accepted by him also on behalf of his two sons, none of whom was a minor. It was also observed that even though the gift was shown to have been made in 1969, the possession was never delivered to the sons as the Khasra Girdawari showed Mali Rab Nawaz to be in possession of the gifted land till Rabi 1972, wel past the cruical date of 20-12-1971.
These findings of the learned Single Member are based on record, and therefore cannot be objected to.
6. For the above reasons I find no force in this writ petition. It is dismissed in limine.