' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---The Federal Land Commission, petthoner herein, seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 21-4-1993, of the Lahore High Court (Bahawalpur Bench) whereby Writ Petition No,22 of 1977 and Writ Petition No,129 of 1977-BWP, were allowed and the order dated 20-9-1976, passed therein, by the petitioner was set aside.
2. One Hayat Muhammad Khan a declarant under Martial Law Regulation 115 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulation") vide three mutations attested on 2-1-1969, gifted away agricultural land situate in three villages in favour of his two sons and his wife. These transactions were also reflected in relevant Register Haqdaran Zameen.
3. The petitioner, in the year 1976, scrutinized these three mutations presumably under para. 29 of the Regulation, and declared the same incomplete and void.
4. The decision of the petitioner dated 20-9-1976, was challenged by the declarant through Writ Petition No,129 of 1977 BWP, which was allowed and the impugned order was declared to be of no legal effect. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
5. Learned Deputy Attorney General contended that no doubt, the alienation of the land by the donor to the heirs were immune from scrutiny, but in the case of mutations in question the same were incomplete and void transactions therefore, were rightly declared as such by the Federal Land Commission and the land involved therein counted towards the holding of the declarant. He, however, was unable to show that the transactions in question were not bona fide. On the contrary the law laid down in Mst. Tayyub Khanam v. Chairman, Federal Land Commission (1984 SCMR 1110), fully takes care of point involved in this case. The alienations of land through gift made by the declarant were admittedly in favour of his heirs and immune from scrutiny under para. 7 of the Regulation. The Deputy Land Commissioner, rightly gave effect to these transactions. The order passed by the learned Single Judge following the dictum of this Court in the above noted case is unexceptionable. In our view, therefore, this is not a fit case for interference in the impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court. Consequently this petition is dismissed and .