' Muhammad Ibrahim (deceased) was a Government servant and a declarant under Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. He declared the area acquired by him during the period specified in para. 10 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 as 295.311 Acres, and he claimed to have alienated 147-11 Acres in Dehs Dakhan and Raiswa h, Taluka Shikarpur on 15-1-1971 in favour of his wife Mst. Gulzar Begum, respondent No.1, in lieu of payment of dower of Rs.80,000 to her. His case was treated as one under paragraph 10 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 by the Sind Land Commission authorities and accordingly area in excess of 100 Acres was resumed. After some litigation the final order in the matter passed by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Sind on 12-12-1974 was challenged through Writ Petition No. 86 of 1975 before the High Court of Sind who remanded the case to the Additional Chief Land Commissioner for fresh hearing. After fresh hearing the Additional Chief Land Commissioner Sind, Hyderabad, vide his order dated 16-5-1985 held that since 147-11 Acres of land acquired by Mst. Gulzar Begum was in satisfaction of her dower claim it was property which she had acquired through her own resources within the meaning of paragraph 4 of Sind Land Commission Notification No. SLC/3668/72/ 2276, dated 17th July, 1972, and would be excluded from the holding of the declarant for purposes of applying limits on ownership or possession under paragraph 10 of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The said order of Additional Chief Land Commissioner also directed the Deputy Land Commissioner while determining his holding to allow the declarant to retain additional area on account of ownership of a tube-well on his land under paragraph 5 of the Sind Land Commission Notification mentioned above. The case was scrutinized by the Inspection Team of the Federal Land Commission who challenged the Additional Chief Land Commissioner's order on the following grounds: --
(a) No evidence was produced by the declarant regarding the dower before any Land Commission authority;
(b) The land in question was purchased when the declarant was in service;
(c) No mutation in respect of the alienation in fa"our of the declarant's wife was made before the crucial date of 20-12-1971 in the Record of Rights; and
(d) No form LR-VII was filed by the declarant in respect of the tube-well concession within the prescribed time.
2. Notices were issued under section 27 of Land Reforms Act, 1977 in exercise of the suo woto revisional jurisdiction of the Federal Government to Mst. Gulzar Begum, wife of the deceased declarant and his legal heirs Saira Bano daughter of Muhammad Ibrahim, Ghulam Akbar, Ghulam Farooq, Ghulam Abid, sons of Abdul Qadir Sheikh, brother of the declarant. Mst. Gulzar Bano appeared at all the hearings through her counsel and was heard. The other respondents, however, failed to appear in spite of repeated issuance of notices culminating in substituted service through publication in newspaper. It was, therefore, decided to proceed with the case ex parte in so far as they were concerned.
3. Counsel for the respondent Mst. Gulzar Begum contended that the case relating to declaration filed under Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 could not be taken up after 30th November, 1976, the terminal date fixed under proviso (a) of paragraph 29 of the Regulation. The counsel further contended that the case could also not be taken up under Land Reforms Act, 1977, as section 27 of the Act empowered the Federal Government to take up cases only under the Land Reforms Act, 1977, whereas cases under Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 which were pending on the commencement of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 and thus stood abated under section 25 of the Act, were revived through Government of Pakistan Notification No.II-1977-LR/2-78 dated 23-9-1978.
Since the present case was not pending before the Federal Land Commission on 4-1-1977 when the Land Reforms Act, 1977 came into effect it did not either abate under section 25 of the Act nor was it, therefore, revived under the notification mentioned above.
4. I shall dispose of the points of law raised by the learned counsel for the respondent before dealing with the merits of the case. Federal Government's powers of taking up any case and passing such order as A it may deem necessary under section 27 of the Land Reforms Act 1977 are unambiguous. Unequivocal and not subject to any limitation and extend to all matters whether falling under the Land Reforms Act, 1977 under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 which has not been repealed by this Act or even under M.L.R. 64 which had been repealed by the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. This is clear from the language of section 27 itself but the intention of the legislators in this regard becomes even more clear from section 24 of the Act under which a commission shall review a case or a class of cases decided by it either before or after the commencement of Land Reforms Act, 1977 if so directed by the Federal Government. A case decided before the commencement of Land Reforms Act, 1977 obviously means a case decided under Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 or M.L.R.
64. This issue has already been settled in a number of cases in which it has been held that the Federal Government is fully competent to take up cases under Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 in exercise of its powers of section 27 of Land Reforms Act, 1977 State v. Syed Jamil Hussain Shah F L C decided on 20-1-1983. State v. Mst. Anwar Khatoon etc. FLC decided on 29-1-1983). The argument that since this matter was not pending before the Federal land Commission on 4-1-1977 it was, therefore, not affected by the Government of Pakistan's Notification No.II-1977 -LR/2-78 dated 23-9- 1978 reviving cases which had abated under section 25 of Land Reforms Act, 1977 is also not tenable since section 25 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 declares all "proceedings pending before the Federal Land Commission" to stand abated on 4-1-1977 but does not in any manner affect the powers of the Federal Government to take up cases either decided or pending or not even taken up by a commission or any authority empowered by a commission etc. The fact, therefore, that the present matter was not pending before the Federal Land Commission on 4-1-1977 is totally irrelevant. Notices in the present case had been issued in order to review a case decided by Additional Chief Land Commissioner's Sind on 16-5-1985 which the Federal Government is fully competent to do under section 27 of the Act.
5. On the merits of the case the counsel contended that anything acquired in lieu of dower by a wife is acquisition through her own resources and, therefore, by virtue of paragraph 4 of Sind Land Commission's Notification No. SLC 3668/72/2276 dated 17-7-1972 such acquisition would not attract application of paragraph 10 of Land Reforms Act, 1977. In respect of non-filing of form LR-VII within the prescribed period for claiming the tube-well confession by the declarant, the counsel argued that the right of additional land concerred by para. 5 of Sind Land Commission's notification mentioned earlier could not be taken away by the Land Commission by notifying a dead-line date for filing of Form LR-VII and by later resolving that such dead-line could not be further extended. In support of this argument the counsel cited case Faridun Nisa Begum Vs. Chairman, F.L.C. PLD 1984 Kar.
449.
6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel on both these points. In so far as the question of whether land acquired by a wife in satisfaction of her dower claim is or is not land acquired through her own resources is concerned, I find the argument not really relevant to the purpose and spirit of paragraph 10 of Land Reforms Regulation 1972 which simply is that persons in the service of Government are to be treated differently for the purpose of application of the law laying down limits on individual holdings from other persons and that the limit in case of a person in the service of Government is fixed under paragraph 10 as 100 Acres of land, or any right or interest therein whether in his own name or in the name of his heirs or any other person. The fact that the land in question was acquired by the deceased declarant within the period prescribed under para. 10 in his own name is not denied. The fact that he transferred part of this land to his wife in payment of her dower claim, although not established even as a fact on the basis on any evidence, is not relevant for the purpose in question. Regardless of the legitimacy of the dower claim and the genuineness of alienation of the land as payment in lieu of dower, strictly for purposes of paragraph 10 only the land must be accounted as holding of the declarant and his heirs. The rights of his wife can very well be protected by the declarant by choosing to surrender under the Land Reforms Regulation land other than that which he had transferred to his wife as dower under the Land Reforms Regulation. I, therefore, set aside the order of Additional Chief Land Commissioner Sind dated 16-5-1985 in so far as it concerns this matter.
7. In so far as the tube-well concession is concerned I accept the argument of the counsel for the respondent and hold that the title to retain additional area on account of ownership of a tube-well cannot be denied to him merely on the ground of his not having filed the Form LR-VII before the prescribed date. Heirs of the declarant should now be allowed to file Form LR-VII in respect of the tube-well in question and additional area under para. 5 of Sind Land Commission Notification No. SLC-3668/72/2276, dated 17-7-1972 should be allowed if the claim fulfils its requirements. The Deputy Land Commissioner should now redetermine the holding of the deceased declarant Muhammad Ibrahim in the light of this order and in accordance with law.
8. Judgment in this case was reserved when it was last heard on 23-11-1986. It should, therefore, be communicated to all concerned through the Deputy Land Commissioner Shikarpur.