ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This order will dispose of to connected petitions for leave to appeal C.P.212 of 1994 and C.P. 213 of 1994 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions.
Facts giving rise to C.P.212 of 1994, briefly stated, are that Sardar Muhammad Aurang Zeb Khan, respondent No.1 owned agricultural lands in different villages of Rahim Yar Khan District. On the promulgation of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115), he. Filed a declaration in Form L.R. 1 wherein he mentioned, inter alia, the following mutations whereby he had alienated some of his lands to his wife, sons and daughters, respondents Nos.2
(i) Mutation. No.68 dated 29-4-1971 transferring 19 acres, 6 Kanals and 16 Marlas of land situate in village Kaura Daraha to his wife Mst. Ghulam Zohran, respondent No.2 in lieu of dower amount.
(ii) Mutation No.326 dated 30-4-1971 whereby land measuring 60 acres, 5 Kanals and 16 Marlas situate in village Karrak was transferred by respondent No. l to his wife Mst. Ghulanm Zohran, respondent Nor2 again in lieu of dower.
(i.e) Mutation No.69 dated 29-4-1971. By which respondent No. l sold 59 acres, 1 Kanal and 10 Marlas of land situate in village Kaura Daraha to his minor sons respondents Nos.3 and 4.
(iv) Mutation No.71 dated 29-4-1971 evidencing-the sale of 2!;facres and 18 Marlas of land situate in village Machka to the declarant's minor sons, respondents Nos.3 and 4.
(v) Mutation No.327 dated 30-4-1971 whereby respondent No.1 sold 202 acres, 1 Kanal and 12 Marlas of land situate in village Kurrak to his minor children, respondents Nos.3 to 6.
2. Deputy Land Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan after scrutinizing the case of the declarant/respondent No.1 forwarded it to the Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division who by his order dated 16-6-1972, upheld the alienations/transactions aforementioned with the result that he did not count the area involved therein in the holding of respondent No.1. About four years, thereafter, the Federal Land Commission on a report of its inspection team initiated suo motu revisional proceedings against the respondents under para. 29 of M.L.R. 115 and a learned Member of the Commission who dealt with the case held that according to the entries in the Revenue Record, possession of the land, the subject-matter of Mutations No.68 and 326 was not shown to have been delivered to the declarant's wife before 20-12-1971 and, therefore, the alienations made in her favour vide these to mutations were not completed before 20-12-1971 and were accordingly void. As regards the Mutations Nos.69, 71 and 327 afore-referred, the learned Member expressed the view that "there being no evidence at all of the delivery of possession to the alleged purchasers, no sale can be said to be constituted in law without delivery of possession of the property sold".
Taking this view of the matter; -the alienations made in favour of the declarant's minor children vide Mutations Nos.69, 71 and 327 were also declared as void. Resultantly, the Member, Federal Land Commission by his order dated 3-11-1976 directed the Deputy Land Commissioner, Rahim Yar Khan to re.,calculate the area to be resumed from the declarant/respondent No.1 after giving him due choice of surrender. Respondents Nos.1 to 6 challenged the order of the Federal Land Commission before the Bahawalpur Bench of Lahore High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction through Writ Petition No.422-77/BWP.
3. In C_P. 213 of 1994, Ghulam Ali Shah respondent was the declarant under the Lid Reforms Regulation, 1972. He owned lands in various revenue estates in Bahawalnagar District. In his declaration, he mentioned several transactions of sales and gifts made by him during the crucial period. All such transactions were scrutinized by the Deputy Land Commissioner and were later upheld by the Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur on 21-9-1972. After a lapse of about four years.
Inspection Team of the Federal Land Commission made a report questioning the validity of four alienations made by the respondent/declarant vide Mutations Nos.37, 39 and 33 pertaining to the land in village Shamun Jassoka and Mutation No.12 relating to the land in village Sharaf Shah Pursuant to this report, the Federal Land Commission commenced the proceedings in exercise of its suo motu jurisdiction under para. 29 of M.L.R. 115 and finally, a Member of the Commission by his order dated 26-11,1976 declared void to of the impugned alienations, namely:
(i) The gift of 98 acres 5 Marlas of land in village Sharaf Shah made by the declarant in favour of his unmarried sister Chanan Begum vide Muitation No. 12.
(ii) The sale of land in village Shamun Jassoka to some strangers vide Mutations No.33 and consequently directed the Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalnagar to 're-calculate the area to be resumed in the light of this order after giving due choice of surrender to the declarant'.
Aggrieved of this order of the Member, Federal Land Commission, the respondent/declarant Ghulam Ali Shah assailed its validity in a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution filed before Bahawalpur Bench of the Lahore High Court (Writ Petition Nos.395--77).
4. Writ petitions in both the cases have been accepted by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, on exactly the same grounds though by to separate judgments dated 30-1-1994 and 1-2-1994 respectively passed in W.P. 395 of 1977 and W.P. 422 of 1977. Learned Judges of the Division Bench have accepted the contention of the petitioners before them that the Member, Federal Land Commission had passed mechanical orders in the light of the reports of Inspection Team of the Commission without applying his independent mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Judges have further held that the Member, Federal Land Commission when exercising revisional powers under para. 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation which is uhuost analogous to the revisional jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts under section 439, Cr.P.C. Ought to have examined the validity of the orders of the and Commissioner upholding the impugned transactions/alienations but perusal of the impugned orders of the Member showed that he "did not at all examine the validity of the order passed by the Land Commissioner. It appears that he even did not see order of the Land Commissioner at all". Learned Judges of the Division Bench also took note of the proviso to sub-para. (b) of para. 7 of the Regulation which made the alienations by way of gifts or transfers made by the declarant to his legal heirs/persons enumerated in the proviso immune from scrutiny of the Land Reforms Authorities.
5. Federal Land Commission has filed these petitions to seek leave to appeal against the judgments of the High Court rendered in the to writ petitions aforementioned.
6. We have heard the Advocate-on-Record appearing for the Federal Land Commission, the petitioner. It is an admitted position that all the alienations/transactions which the Member, Federal Land Commission, declared void in exercise of his revisional powers under para. 29 of M.L.R. 115 were earlier held to be valid by the Land Commissioner after proper scrutiny. In the circumstances, the learned Member of the Federal Land Commission when exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction under para. 29 of the Regulation should have addressed himself specifically to the orders of the Land Commissioner and examined validity thereof in accordance with law but as rightly pointed out by the High Court, this did not appear to have been done. High Court has, therefore, rightly held that "the Member, Federal Land Commission had not acted with lawful authority while passing the impugned orders within the parameters of law". Even otherwise, in view of the second proviso to clause (b) of para. 7 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, it was not open to the Federal Land Commission or any of its Members to examine the validity of the impugned alienations/transfers made by Sardar Muhammad Aurangzeb (respondent in C.P. 212/94) by way of gifts and sales in favour of his wife, sons and daughters who all were his heirs. Similarly, the gift of land by Ghulam Ali Shah (respondent in C. P. 213/94) to his unmarried sister vide Mutation No. 12 was also immune from scrutiny by the Land Reforms Authorities by virtue of the second proviso afore-referred. The said proviso, it may be stated, makes clause (b) of para. 7 which declares void all the transfers of land made during the period prescribed therein inapplicable to the alienations/transfers by way of gifts or otherwise i.e., including the sales made by the declarant in favour of his heirs and the transfer of land by way of gift made in favour of the widowed and unmarried sister who has not received her due share of inheritance of ancestral land. That being so, the Member, Federal Land Commission had no jurisdiction to examine the merits of transactions made by Sardar Muhammad Aurangzeb respondent in favour of his heirs and the transaction of gift by Ghulam Ali Shah respondent to his unmarried sister. The only other transaction not covered by the aforesaid proviso was one of sale of the land in village Shamun Jassoka vide Mutation No.33. It was declared invalid by the Member, Federal Land Commission on the ground that it was not implemented in the record of rights. No other flaw was pointed out in the said transaction with reference to the factors mentioned in Explanation III appended to clause (b) aforesaid. The mutation in question was admittedly attested on 1-1-1971. It was, therefore, completed on that date and the mere fact that the entry of mutation was not carried into the record of rights was not sufficient to hold the sale invalid.
7. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we find no merit in these petitions which are accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.