RAZA ALI, MEMBER.- This case was taken. Up in view of the following observation/recommendation contained in the order dated 16-4-1995 of the Member, Federal Land Commission, passed in Revision Petition No. RP.I(490)/FLC/94 (Muhammad Yasin and 3 others Vs. Deputy Land Commissioner, Lahore and 27 others):- "10. However, the Land Commission Punjab should take Cognizance of the observations of the Land Commissioner Lahore and Supreme Court in which it has been stated that the declarant was a small land owner and the exchange was not with any ulterior motive. I would recommend that the petitioners be allotted some land elsewhere in Punjab, if possible."
2. The facts briefly are that Sufaid Khan son of Mangli, resident of Dhundey, Post Office Raiwind, Tehsil and District Lahore was allotted 25 acres of land in village Gandi Roop Singh, Tehsil Chunian, under the West Pakistan Border Area Regulation, 1959 (MLR 9 of 1959). During consolidation proceedings the area was increased to 30 acres. Subsequently, in 1965, Sufaid Khan exchanged his aforesaid land with the land (23.937 acres) in the adjoining village Gare Singhwala, tehsil Chunian, owned by Umar and Shah Muhammad. It seems that village Gare Singhwala through originally included in the border area was later excluded from that area and no allotment was ever made from this village under the Border Allotment Scheme. Sufaid Khan filed declaration m Form L.R. III under para 12(I)(c) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR 115 of 1972) and the land obtained in exchange in village Gare Singhwala by Sufaid Khan was resumed from him by order dated 31-7- 1972 of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Lahore under para 14 of the aforesaid 1972-Regulation. On appeal, the Land Commissioner Lahore Division, vide his order dated 16-9-1972, remanded the case to the Deputy Land Commissioner, Lahore, on the point whether the area obtained by the appellant in village Gore Singhwala was within 5 miles of the border and thus within the Border Scheme. The report finally received from the Tehsildar, Chunian, indicated that the actual site occupied by the appellant was over 5 miles from the Indo-Pak border and moreover village Gore Singhwala had been excluded from the Border Allotment Scheme. Therefore the Land Commissioner, Lahore Division, by his order dated 19-12- 1972, directed and observed as under:- "... In the circumstances according to Para 14, the impugned land should be resumed. However, the circumstances of the case indicate that the appellant was a small land owner and the exchange was not done with any ulterior motive. The case may therefore be recommended to the Land Commission for relaxation, if possible."
Sufaid Khan filed revision petition which was dismissed by order dated 12-6-1973 of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab. His second-revision petition was dismissed by order dated 25- 10-1973 of the Member, Federal Land Commission. He filed Writ Petition No. 116/1974 which was dismissed by High Court's order dated 4.3.1974. He then filed Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 245/1974, which was also dismissed by order dated 16-10-1974 of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, with the following observation:- " The petitioner may, however, if so advised, approach the Land Commission for review or reconsideration of his case in face of positive finding by the Land Commissioner, Lahore Zone, that exchange resulting in the transfer of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner was bona fide:- Muhammad Yasin and others, successors in interest of Sufaid Khan filed miscellaneous petition dated 24-7-1993 for restoration of the land resumed from Sufaid Khan under para 14 of the 1972- Regulation, after cancelling allotment thereof from the names of respondents Nos. 3 to 28, but their request was found to be untenable and rejected vide order dated 13-1-1994 for the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab. They filed revision, petition under para 29 of the 1972- Regulation. Against the order dated 13-1-1994 of the Chief Land Commissioner, but the revision petition was rejected by order dated 16-4-1995 of the Member, Federal Land Commission. The Member, Federal Land Commission in his order dated 16-4-1995 simultaneously observed/recommended as under:- "10. However, the Land Commission Punjab should take cognizance of the observations of the Land Commissioner Lahore and Supreme Court in which it has been stated that the declarant was a small land owner and the exchange was not done with any ulterior motive. I would recommend that the petitioners be allotted some land elsewhere in Punjab, if possible."
Hence these proceedings.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. I find that motives behind exchanges were not to be taken into consideration while applying the provisions of para 14 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. In any case, after adjudication upto the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the question of restoration of the land resumed from Sufaid Khan under para 14 of the 1972-Regulation does not arise. However, it does not seem to be primary object of land reforms to deprive small landowners of their small holdings/means of sustenance. Moreover, the case of Sufaid Khan was a border line case. Therefore, taking a compassionate view and considering the recommendation of the learned Member, Federal Land Commission, I direct that available untenanted land resumed under the land reforms law, equivalent to the area of twenty five acres in Kasur District or elsewhere in the Punjab, be granted, free of charge, to late Sufaid Khan through his legal heirs. The legal heirs of Sufaid Khan may select available untenanted resumed land to the extent of 25 acres and intimate particulars thereof to the Chief Land Commissioner,-Punjab for implementation of the order after necessary clearance from the Deputy Land Commissioner concerned.