It is not necessary to give the lengthy history of the case through which it has passed. The relevant facts for the purpose of the order which I propose to pass are that Malik Asadullah Khan declarant of village Naul Authar, Tehsil Kasur, District Lahore, filed L. C. Forms under Land Reforms Regulation (M. L. R. 115) of 1972. The extent of his estate was worked out and it was found that he possessed land worth 16811 Produce Index Units in excess of the permissible ceiling. He was required to give a choice for surrendering land to that extent which choice he duly exercised. Later on, the declarant died and it appears that the Land Reforms Authori--ties worked up the extent of his total ceiling again and it was found that the land excess with him was actually to the extent of 2563 P. I. Units and not 1681 P. I. Units. It was held from the declarant. By that time, the declarant, however, had died. The heirs of the declarant, as it appears from the order of the learned Member, Federal Land Commission, dated 12-5-1.975, wanted to exercise a choice in that respect. The order of the learned Member, Federal Land Commission shows that the privilege of choice was granted to the heirs who, however, wanted to surrender their ownership in that area which was in the exclusive cultivating possession of other co-sbarers. The learned Member, Federal Land Com--mission did not accede to that choice holding that this will cause compli--cations for the Land Commission authorities. The actual passage in the order or the learned Member, Federal Land Commission, in this respect, reads as follows "Fresh choice can be exercised in respect of 882 P. I. Us., which are further to be resumed. The petitioners were given several chances to indicate their choice. It was explained to them that they would give their choice out of that land which was not in the exclusive cultivation of other co- sharers. They, however, insisted on giving their choice for that land only. Acceding to this request of their will cause complications for the Land Commission Authorities. Moreover, the petitioners are not justified in asking the Land Com--mission authorities to resume that land which is in the exclusive possession of other co-sharers."
The petitioners who are heirs of the declarant have come up in writ petition against the aforesaid proceedings and orders to this Court and the ultimate order of the learned Member, Federal Land Commission has particularly been the subject-matter of comments by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has argued that once it was conceded to give a choice to the petitioners, then under the law the Land Reforms authorities had no jurisdiction subject of course to the provisions of paragraph 11 (1) of the Regulation to compel a person to exercise a choice from a particular piece of land or not to exercise from another piece of land. I have been taken through the provisions of the Land Reforms Regulation (M. L. R. 115) of 1972 by the learned counsel for the parties. There is no provision anywhere in the main Regulation or in the form of any direction or rules and none has been brought to my notice by the learned,, counsel for the parties which may have given an authority or jurisdiction to the Land Reforms authorities to insist upon a particular type of choice as was involved in this case. As a matter of fact Mr. Farooq A. Hassan) learned Assistant Advocate- General raised the plea that the petitioners had no case, inasmuch as, they were not entitled to exercise any choice at all. I do not want to deal with this objection here, because, the learned Member Federal Land Commission has proceeded on the assumption that the petitioners did possess a right of choice which in fact he was prepared to grant to them as is evident from that portion of his order which was subjected to criticism by the learned counsel for the petitioners and which has been reproduced above in extenso. He also referred to paragraph 11 (1) of the Land Reforms Regulation (M. L. R. 115) to state that the Land Reforms authorities could insist upon a declarant that he "shall as far as possible select compact blocks of not less than the size of an economic holding." There was, however, no finding that the choice exercised by the petitioners suffered from this defect in any manner. In that view of the matter, the abstract view taken by the learned Member, Federal Land Commission on the subject is clearly without jurisdiction and without lawful authority and of no legal consequence against the petitioners. I hold accordingly.
The result is that the writ petition is accepted, the order passed by the learned Member, Federal Land Commission, dated 12-5-1975 is hereby quashed and the case is remanded to him for fresh decision in accordance with law. It may be clarified that so far as the choice which had been exercised by the late declarant himself during his lifetime while surrendering land to the extent of 1681 P.
1. Units is concerned, the same has not been taken exception to before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners and his submission was that at the present the dispute was with regard to the choice to be exercised from that area which had been PUNJAB LABOUR COURT No. 2 Gul Muhammad Khan, J) left with Malik Asadullah Khan declarant after having surrendered land to the extent of 1681 P. I. Units. There shall be no order as to costs.