IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 2112 and 2108 of 1976, in which challenge has been made respectively to the orders dated 9-10-1975 and 3-7-1976 passed by the respondent Federal Land Commission Authorities.
2. The dispute in this case relates to an oral gift made on 30-9-1971 by Bahawal Khan in favour of his sons namely, Farhat Hussain (21 years), Musarrat Hussain, Rahat Hussain and Sadat Hussain (minors), in respect of an area of land measuring 1883 Kanals 16 Marlas in Mauza Mumdana Khurd, Tehsil and District Toba Tek Singh in equal shares. The admitted facts are that on 27-11-1971, the petitioners/donees submitted an application to the Tehsildar for sanction of the mutation of gift.
The application was forwarded to the Girwarar/Patwari Halqa. The Patwari, vide his report dated 5- 12-1971 asked the donees to produce their father to attest the gift. Mutation No. 43 was entered, on 29-12-1971 and attested on 30-12-1971. The Land Commissioner, Sargodha, vide order dated 15-6- 1972 declared the transaction void, in that, the mutation was entered after the crucial date, that is to say, 20-12-1971. His order was upheld in appeal by the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, vide order dated 14-9-1972 holding that there was no entry in the Roznamcha Waqiati dated 5-12-1971 and that the donor did not appear before the Patwari. It was also observed that Farhat Hussain was not competent to accept gift on behalf of his minor brothers and that the dates against the signatures of Kanungo and Patwari were mutilated on the application. In revision, the Chief Land Commissioner Punjab, vide order dated 30-8-1974 declared that the gift to the extent of Farhat Hussain is void but the rest was invalid on the ground that Farhat Hussain could accept the gift for himself and not for the other donees. The petitioners filed revision petition against the said order, in consequence whereof, the Member, Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi Camp at Lahore, vide order dated 9-10-1975 dismissed the revision petition being barred by 304 days against prescribed limit of sixty days and also observing that it will be barred by time even if the computation were to be made from the date of order of this Court that is to say 20-1-1975 passed in Writ Petition No.108 of 1975. Order dated 9-10-1975 has been impugned in Writ Petition No.2112 of 1976. The Member, Federal Land Commission vide order dated 3-7-1976 in exercise of his suo motu powers vested under para. 29 of the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972, declared the transaction in its entirety as void on the ground that the transaction took place after the crucial date, that. is to say, 20-12-1971 and, therefore, it cannot be held to be valid to any extent whatsoever. This order dated 3-7-1976 has been impugned through Writ Petition No. 2108 of 1976.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the factum of gift is not denied and, therefore, all evidence on the record indicated that the same was valid. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the acceptance of the transaction to the extent of the major donee should have been extended to cover the case of the minor donees also. Instead of making a favourable' decision with regard to all the donees, the respondents authorities are in error of jurisdiction in recalling the order to the extent of Farhat Hussain as well. He was, however, not in a position to dispute the existence of suo motu revisional power of the respondent Land Commission under para. 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation 115. Sh. Muhammad Akram, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on Mir Haji Ali Ahmad Khan Talpur and 9 others v. Government of Sindh and 2 others (PLD 1976 Karachi 316), contended that all the ingredients of a valid gift were satisfied, therefore, the mutation ought to have been upheld by the authorities under the Land Reforms Regulation. He also heavily relied on Ibrahim v. Mst. Wazir Begum (PLD 1967 Lahore 1087), to contend that the donor's physical parting with the possession is not always necessary for creation of a valid gift. We are afraid both the authorities are of no avail to the petitioners, in that, the real controversy falling for determination in this case is whether the gift-transaction, which was admittedly entered after 20-12-1971, could be treated as a valid gift within the purview of para. 7(2)(b) of M.L.R.
115. Similarly the case of Abdul Haq v. The Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi (1986 CLC 2538), is also of no, avail to the petitioners, where the question under examination was with regard to alienation of land in favour of sons. This was not a case where the mutation was entered in the revenue record after the crucial date.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance in Mir Ali Bux Talpur and others v. Chief Land Commissioner, Sindh` (1982 CLC 520), Syed Ghulam Nabi Shah and 2 others v. Officer-on- Special Duty, Federal Land Commission and 4 others (1982 CLC 1472), Khan Muhammad Ahmad Khan and 4 others v: Officer-on-Special Duty, Federal Land Commission (1982 CLC 1945), to contend that benefits of a gift in favour of legal heirs cannot be questioned. We are afraid, these authorities have no nexus with the controversy involved in the instant petitions.
5. Lastly, reliance was also placed on Wahid Bux v. The. Federal Land Commissioner. and another (1988 CLC 1690) and Sher Ali v. Mst. Mariam Bai (1984 CLC 1893), to contend that transfer of physical possession to minor donees is not required and, therefore, gift involved in these petitions should have been validated in case of all the petitioners. We are afraid, this plea might have succeeded if the transaction had been entered in the revenue record before the expiry of crucial date. Here the transaction of gift was admittedly entered in the revenue record on 29-12-1971 and attested on 30- 12-1971 and the learned counsel for the petitioner has no answer as to how such a transaction could be treated as valid within the purview of para. 7(2)(b) of M.L.R. 115.
Moreover, the revision petition filed by the petitioner under para. 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, against the order dated 30-8-1976 passed by the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore, was barred by time and in the absence of any reason whatsoever, being advanced by or on behalfof the petitioners, the Member cannot be held to have exceeded the confines of jurisdiction in dismissing the revision petition.
7. As regards the plea that the respondents authorities had no jurisdiction under para. 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, suffice it to say that the petitioners were heard through their counsel, Ch. Lal Din and they did not object to the jurisdiction of the learned Member, Federal Land, Commission even then. As to the plea that only one of the donees, namely, Farhat Hussain petitioner was served notice and none other and the counsel also appeared on his behalf, it may be noticed that the claim of Farhat Hussain is in no measure different from that of other donees and is also indivisible. There is, therefore, no force in the submission that the impugned order dated C 3-7-1976 of the learned Member Federal Land Commission is violative of the principles of natural justice or has caused prejudice to the petitioners for alleged non-service of notice before the concerned Member, Federal Land Commission. In any event, no ground whatsoever has been made out for interference, in; that, the impugned order dated 3-7-1976 is tantamount to remedying a manifest illegality. In view of the above, both the ,writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cots.