KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The dispute in this case is about half ,r)f the area involved in Khewat No. 232 situated in village Naushehra, Tehsil Pindigheb, district Campbellpur. The total area of this Khewat is -4779 kanals and 11 marlas which was gifted away by Allah Yar Khan to the present petitioner on 26-1-1967. There is some dispute about the :date of this gift but for the present we do not attend to that controversy .And to continue with the narration of facts it may be mentioned that the donor on 27-2-1970 filed a Civil Suit stating that actually he had or :had intended to gift only one-half of the area of the aforesaid Khewat and entry in the revenue records indicating that the whole of the area had been Sifted was not correct. On these premises he prayed for possession of one---half of the land. The father of the petitioner died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives viz. Three daughters Mst. Sadiq Sultan, Mst. Sarwar Sultan and Mst. Safeedan Bano, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, were brought on record who filed an amended plaint pleading that actually the one-half area of this Khewat belonged and was intended to be given to them as their brother had already received more than his share from the point of view of inheritance. However, on 10-6-1970 -the defendant-petitioner confessed judgment and a consent decree for possession on that basis was passed.
2. The case for the scrutiny of land of the petitioner under: M.L.R. 115, came up before the learned Deputy Land Commissioner, Campbellpur, who, by means of his order dated 25-5-1972, refused to accept the consent decree and treated the entire Khewat as belonging to him. The petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Land Commissioner, Rawalpindi, on 27-5-1972. The petitioner then filed a revision which also met the same fate and was dismissed by the learned Chief Land Commissioner on 7-9-1972. The petitioner has come up in writ petition against the aforesaid proceedings and orders to this Court.
3. The subordinate authorities have ignored the civil Court's decree hereinbefore mentioned on the ground that no application for its execution had been filed and they have further held that if the petitioner so desires, he can make a transfer of an equivalent area from his own holding to his sisters. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we must say that the case has not been examined by the authorities concerned in a correct perspective of law and facts. The points to be considered inter alia were:
(a) What was the nature of the suit as originally filed?
(b) What was the nature of the amended plaint ?
(c) What were the written statements filed by the petitioner to both the plaints ?
(d) What was the statement made by the petitioner in his capacity as a defendant on the basis of which the consent decree was passed?
(e) Whether the transaction was a gift from father to daughters or froma brother to sisters? Or
(f) Whether the case was covered by Paras. 7 (1) (a), 7 (1) (b) or Explanation II to Para. 7 (1) (b) and Para. 7 (3) of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 ?
(g) What was the effect of the institution of suit for possession keeping in view the nature of the transaction and the principle that in cases of gifts if the donor is out of possession then institution of suit for recovery of possession for handing the same over to the donees in certain, cases, is considered in the eye of law as enough? See Fazal Ahmad v. Mst. Rakhi PLD 1958 Lah. 218 and Muhammad Buksh Khan and others v. Hosseni Bibi and others L R 15 Cal. 684 (P C) and the principles enunciated therein.
(h) Whether the civil decree created a title regardless of the fact that not execution application was filed though time for filing such application was still ripe? See judgment of this Court dated 1- 11-1971 in W. P. No. 792 of 1970 entitled Muhammad Fazal v. Member, Board of, Revenue and others and its appellate judgment in A.I Ahmad and another v. Muhammad Fazal and another PLD 1973 Lah. 207 and 1972SCMR322, and
(i) Whether the civil suit purported to establish a title already vesting in the daughters of Allah Yar Khan and have the principles (a) that equity looks to intent and not the form, and (b) equity treats that as done which ought to have been done, any application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
4. We have refrained from attending to these matters ourselves because the Scheme of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 shows that it is the exclusive a jurisdiction of the Land Reform authorities mentioned therein to attend to such points and record their own views. In the instant case, since neither the relevant law bad been taken into consideration nor the attending circumstances had been adverted to and the judgments of the authorities below suffer from omission of factual details as well as law, therefore, we have no option but to accept this writ petition, quash the impugned orders and declare them as to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect against the petitioner, which we hereby do. Since enough time has been wasted in this litigation, we consider it proper to remit the case to the learned Chief Land Commissioner who should decide it after giving opportunity to all the parties concerned and allowing them to raise such pleas and lead such evidence which they may lice to do in the circumstances of the case. There shall be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.