1. AJMAL MIAN, CJ. --The above petitions are directed against the orders dated 13-1-1980 (C.P. Nos.
2. D-907 & 1028 of 1980) and dated 27-2-1980 (C.P. No. 1030/ 1980), passed by respondent No. 1. We intend to dispose of the above three petitions by this common judgment as they involve the common point of law and common facts. The brief facts in these petitions are that while suo motu proceedings under the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 were pending before respondent No. 1, Act 11 of 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enacted, section 25 of which provides as follows: "25.--Abatement of pending proceedings--All, proceedings pending before the Federal Land Commission shall, on commencement of this Act, stand abated unless the Federal Government directs otherwise in a case or class of cases."
3. It seems that the Federal Government by a general notification dated 23rd September, 1978, purported to keep the above proceedings alive. We have held in a number of petitions that the above general Notification is ultra vires of section 25 of the Act. In this regard, reference may be made to an unreported judgment in the case of Sher Muhammad and others v. Member Federal Land Commission and others (C.P. No. D-2069 of 1979) delivered on .1-11-1988, wherein we have held as follows: "4. We are inclined to hold that under above-quoted Section 25 the Federal Government had the power to direct that a ease car class of cases would not stand abated but it could not have issued the impugned Notification directing that all the vases which were pending before the Federal Land Commission on or before the enactment of the Act shall not be abated. The impugned Notification in fact purports to nullify the effect of Section 25 of the Act as a whole and, therefore, it is ultra vires of the powers of the Federal Government. In this view of the matter, the impugned notice issued in pursuance of the above impugned Notification also cannot be sustained."
4. There seems to be no reason to take different view than the view taken in the above case. We, therefore, allow the above petition and declare the impugned orders as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect as the same were passed in pursuance of the aforesaid Notification dated 23rd September, 1978, which we have held ultra vires of Section 25 of the Act. However there will be no order as to costs.