ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.-- A declarant under Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 sold land measuring 1,335 Kanals in village Moonda, Tehsil and District Jhang, vide Mutation No. 89 sanctioned on 11-10-1971 in favour of Nazar Hussain, Muhammad Nawaz and Faiz Ullah. Faiz Ullah, in his turn, sold land measuring 348 Kanals in favour of the petitioners, vide Registered Sale-Deed, dated 27-3-1973, for which Mutation No. 103 was sanctioned on 3-8-1974. In exercise of suo motu powers, the Member, Federal Land Commission issued notice to the declarant and cancelled the Mutation No. 89, dated 11-10-1971 in favour of Nazar Hussain, Muhammad Nawaz and Faiz Ullah, vide order, dated 1-7-1976. The petitioners who were vendees from Faiz Ullah, vide Mutation No. 103 sanctioned in their favour on 3-8-1974 have filed the above-titled Constitutional petition.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that a mutation stood sanctioned in their favour frcun their vendor Faiz Ullah and even when it was known that Faiz Ullah had sold the land in dispute by the declarant and a mutation stood sanctioned in his favour, neither the petitioners nor Faiz Ullah were issued any notice by the Federal Land Commission as is apparent from the impugned order. Their rights have been extinguished behind their back. It is against rules of natural justice.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Federal Land Commission submitted that the petition suffers from laches because the impugned order was passed in 1976 and the petition was filed in 1983.
Secondly the sale mutation was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners on 3-8-1974 after the due date. On merit, the learned counsel for the Land. Reforms authorities submitted that there are decisions that a donee from a declarant is not entitled to a notice or hearing. Reference was made to Mst. Raj Bibi and 4 others v. Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab Lahore and 2 others PLD 1975 Lah. 408, Sardar Shafiq Hyder Khan Leghari v. Member (Abdul Qayyum) Federal Land Commission PLD 1981 Lah. 356; Mst. Surraya Mamdot and others v Jamshed Iftikhar and others 1982 CLC 25 and Maula Bakhsh and others v. Chairman, Federal Land Commission and another 1982 CLC 37. However, in fairness to Sh. Zia Ullah, Advocate for the respondent authorities it must be said that he candidly referred to Abdul Wadud Khan v. Chief Land Commissioner and another PLD 1983 SC 183, wherein it is laid down that in accordance with the principle of natural justice, a donee from a declarant is entitled to be heard before the gift in his favour is set at naught. From this, it would follow that if a person getting property for nothing is entitled to be heard before any adverse order is passed against him, moreso it would be that a purchaser for value is entitled to be heard before his predecessor-in-interest's title is extinguished. Therefore, in view of the latest law declared by the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan, the impugned order having been passed against the interests of the petitioners without admittedly issuing them a notice, the same is liable to be declared as of without lawful authority and no legal effect. The delay in the circumstances is not fatal. Nobody can be blamed for delay if an order is passed against him behind his back unless he' comes to know thereof and is affected thereby in his rights and possession. Mutation in favour of the petitioners still subsists. Whatever their rights under the mutation, they have to be determined in accordance with law. Therefore, in view of the fact` that the order of the learned Member, Federal Land Commission, dated 1-7-1976 is contrary to the rules of natural justice, the same is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with necessary consequences. In the circumstances, the matter is remitted to the learned Federal Land Commission for redecision, after notice to all concerned, in accordance with law.
4. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.