' M. JAVED BUTTAR, J.---This petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973) by Lal and 21 others, calls in question the validity of the order passed by the Federal Land Commission dated 8-9-1990 in purported exercise of his suo motu under Para. 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation No, 115/hereinafter described as 'Regulation'.
2. The factual matrix of this petition is not in dispute. Ghazi Shah/respondent No,4, was the owner of agricultural land in four districts namely, Faisalabad, Rahimyar Khan, Jhang and Miizaffargarh. As he was the owner of more agricultural land in District Faisalabad he filed declaration under the Regulation before the Deputy Land Commissioner, of that district, who, vide order dated 16-9-1975, allowed him 333 P.I. Units in lieu of his 1/6th share in the tubewell installed in Mauza Arotthi, Tehsil Sadiqabad in addition to 12 thousand P.I. Us. Permissible to him under Regulation. This order was finalised in 1977 when his holding in Mauza Arotthi, Tehsil Sadiqabad, was treated surrendered and granted to tenants under the relevant provisions of Regulation. This was, however, not the end of die matter. The Federal Land Commission Inspection Team, pursuant to some order of Deputy Land Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan, moved the Federal Land Commission for giving him further benefit of 1667 P.I. Us. Acting on the said report, the Federal Land Commission, vide impugned order, allowed respondent No,4 to retain the area equivalent to 2000 P.I. In lieu of his tubewell situated in revenue-estate Arotthi, Tehsil Sadiqabad. This is how this Constitutional petition has come to this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Muhammad Yousuf All Shah v. Federal Land Commission, Government of Pakistan (1995 CLC 369), to contend that the learned Federal Land Commission, had passed the impugned order in mechanical manner without applying his judicious mind to the facts and circumstances of this case; that he had no jurisdiction to simply affirm the report of the Federal Land Commission Inspection Team and that too without hearing the petitioners who are grantees. It was further contended that even the learned Federal Land Commission had overlooked that he had no jurisdiction whatsoever under Para. 29 of the Regulation to set aside the order validly passed by the Land Reforms Authorities. Reliance was placed on Munir Ahmad v. Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Pakistan (1994 CLC 20). The learned counsel for respondent No,4, stoutly supported the impugned order. He, however, was not able to controvert that the impugned order was passed on the basis of report furnished by the Federal Land Commission Inspection Team and without hearing the petitioners.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and attended to their rival contentions. The rule laid down in Munir Ahmad's case, supra, as well as Muhammad Yusuf Ali Shah's, case supra, are fully attracted to this case. While dealing with the ambit of Para. 29 of the Regulation in Munir Ahmad v. Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Pakistan (1994 CLC 20), one of us (Mian Allah Nawaz, J.) speaking for the Bench said: "10. From the above survey of applicable law and precedents, following principles of law are deducible:--
(i) The suo motu power of Federal Land Commission under para. 29 of the Regulation is almost analogous of the revisional power of Criminal Courts under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revisional Court, under para. 29 of the Regulation, is empowered to summon the record of subordinate authorities for the purpose of satisfying about the correctness/validity of the orders passed by them/actions taken by them/proceedings initiated by them against owners of land. The Federal Land Commission, thus, can set aside the orders/actions of the subordinate authorities, if it comes to the conclusion that orders/actions suffers from excess of jurisdiction, absence of jurisdiction or are in defiance of some express provision of law. This jurisdiction is amalgam of wide as well as limited power. This proceeds upon the principle of doing ex debitio justice and is not designed to victimise any one.
(ii) The alienations made by way of gifts or transfers made by declarant to his legal heirs/persons enumerated in proviso to sub-para. (b) of Para. 7 of the ( Regulation are immune from scrutiny of Land Reform Authorities.
(iii) The Regulation is confiscatory in nature and embodies the principle of expropriation of the property of citizens without payment of compensation. It has, so, to be construed strictly and in favour of the subject."
5. Applying these principles to the facts and circumstances of this case it is crystal clear that the Federal Land Commission, while passing the impugned order, had not even seen the order of Deputy Land Commissioner, Faisalabad dated 16-9-1975. It is further clear that he had not even issued notices to the petitioners who had been granted land by the competent authorities. It is further evident that he had mechanically relied upon the report, submitted by the Federal Land Commission Inspection Team, which we have noticed, was wholly unfounded.
6. As a result of above discussion, this Constitutional petition succeeds and is accordingly accepted with requested reliefs. The order passed by the Federal Land Commission dated 8-9- 1976 is hereby declared to have been passed without any lawful authority and of no lawful consequence and is set aside accordingly. The case is remitted to the Federal Land Commission with the direction to decide the matter after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.