ORDERM. ASGHAR KHAN, MEMBER.- This is a revision petition against the order of the Deputy Land Commissioner Sahiwal dated 5.6.1986, by which the Deputy Land Commissioner allowed exclusion of land measuring I0O acres comprising square Nos. 5, 6, 10, 15 and I6 situated in Mauza Jamoon Bodla of Tehsil Pakpattan from the holding of the declarant (Pir Ali Gauhar Chishti) as the same was alleged to have been given to his wife, Mst. Rukhsana Parveen in lieu of dowery on 7.12.1972. The issue whether the land declared is irrigated by a combined system or is irrigated by canal water only is pending in the High Court and is sub judice. This issue is therefore not touched in these proceedings.
2. Briefly the facts arising out of this revision petition are that the Deputy Land Commissioner, Sahiwal, vide his order dated 24.4.1978 determined the holding of the declarant as 304 Acres, 4 Kanals, 4 Marlas equivalent to 13548 PIUs. The declarant Hied an appeal before the Land Commissioner Multan on the grounds that the classification of soil of his land was wrongly treated as 'NUL NEHRI' instead of 'Nehri' by the Deputy Land Commissioner. The Land Commissioner, Multan vide his order dated 6.11.1978 remanded the case to the Deputy Land Commissioner, Sahiwal for fresh decision, who vide his order dated 26.10.1981 re-determined the holding of the declarant as equivalent to 13952 PIUs. In review, the application of the declarant was also dismissed by the Deputy Land Commissioner Sahiwal vide his order dated 20.2.1983, and his appeal against this order was also rejected by the Land Commissioner Multan vide his order dated 26.6.1983. The declarant went in rcVistion bfore the Chief Land Commissioner' Punjab and this revision petition was also dismissed vide order dated 29.1.1984. The second revision before the Federal Land Commission was- accepted by the Member. Federal Land Commission and the case was remanded to the Deputy Land Commissioner Sahiwal on 8.7.1984 with the directions that the PIUs of the holding of the declarant should be calculated in accordance with the classification of soil, as determined by the Deputy Land Commissioner Sahiwal while deciding the case under Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The present petitioners filed a writ petition before the High Court against this order of the Federal Land Commission which is still pending.
3. The counsel for the declarant stated that his client has been the attorney of his wife Mst.
Rukhsana Parveen throughout the period of litigation and had filed an application before Deputy Land Commissioner' Sahiwal requesting for the exclusion of land measuring I0O acres situated in Mauza Jamoon Bodla, Tehsil Pakpattan from the holding of her husband (Pir Ali Gauhar Chishti) declarant. He produced the Nikahnama dated 7.12.1972 by virtue of which land measuring I0O acres was given to his wife. The Deputy Land Commissioner vide his order dated 5.6.1986 accepted this Nikahnama. Notwithstanding the authenticity of the Nikahnama which according to the counsel for the declarant was checked by the Deputy Land Commissioner through various sources to be genuine, the fact remains that this Nikahnama was registered on 7.12.1972 while according to the MLR 115 Section 7 (l)(a) all transactions of this nature which occurred after 20.12.1971 are void.
Besides this, no mutation was done in favour of the respondent's wife till date nor was this transaction mentioned in any of the litigation from Deputy Land Commissioner to Federal Land Commission. The counsel further contended that the respondent was in possession of the area under dispute, A perusal of the revenue record shows that not only is this land mutated in favour of the petitioners but also the Girdawari was being regularly entered in their name.
4. The counsel for the petitioners pleaded that the whole transaction was based on malafide intentions and was a fruad. He further said that the question of Nikahnama was an after-thought and in any case it was hit by Section 7 of MLR 115. He further contended that nothing was entered in his wife's name in (Raza Ali, Member (Colonies) the revenue record which speaks for itself as the land under question is not only mutated in the name of the petitioners but is also in their possession.
5. For reasons given in preceding paragraphs, I accept the revision \ petition of the petitioners and set aside the order of Deputy Land Commissioner I dated 5.6.1986. The case was heard on 9.1,1992 ah the judgment was reserved. I The judgment may be communicated, to the parties through the Deputy Land Commissioner Sahiwal.