1. ' This is a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution against the order dated 29-9-1976 passed by the learned Member, Federal Land Commission as a delegatee of the revisional jurisdiction of the Federal Government which he purported to exercise suo motu under para. 29 of M. L. R. 115 of 1971 The question was whether the petitioner could have been allowed to have additional area under para. 8 of the aforesaid Regulation on the ground of his owning a tractor. This claim was accepted by the learned Chief Land Commissioner by means of his order dated 16-10-1972 which was upset in revision by the learned Member, Federal Land Commission.
2. ' The case came up before me on 10-2-1977, when I admitted it so a regular hearing passing the following order:- "In this case a loan was obtained on 3-2-70 (see Annexure 'A'). The delivery of the tractor was given to the petitioner on 18-5-1970 (see Annex. 'A/1'). The balance due in the form of octroi and transit- in-sea charges were paid on the same day that is 18-5-1970 (see Annex. A/2). There are two other certificates dated 24-6-1972 (Annex. A/3) and dated 2-10-1972 (Annex. A/4) certifying that the tractor was delivered to Malik Feteh Khan and providing as to what were the conditions of the sale of tractors on loan. Later on, on 6-4-1972, Malik Fateh Khan secured a formal registration of the tractor. The learned Chief Lard Commissionee by means of his order, dated 16.10-1972 (Annex. '13') on the above evidence held that the petitioner did own a tractor on 20-12-1971. The said finding.
3. However, has been reversed by the Member, Federal Land Commission by means of para. 8 of his order, dated 29-9-1976 (Annex. 'G'). All the aforesaid material has been accepted by the learned Member, Federal Land Commission, but in para. 9 of his judgment he has held that as there was no registration of the tractor in the name of the petitioner on 20-12-1971, therefore, the petitioner could not be held to be owning a tractor on the aforesaid date despite the aforesaid proof. This finding whereby the learned Member, Federal Land Commission denied or refused to accept the ownership of the petitioner, it is argued, is based on surmises and conjectures and is against the record which in the circumstances has been misread or omitted from reading it correctly. Admit.
4. Notice
(2) Status quo meanwhile for a period of sixty days as contemplated in Article 199 of the Constitution. The case, however, should be fixed at an early date within the aforesaid period before a D. B. Copy dash"
5. The facts have been clearly given in the admitting order and the relevant material and evidence has also been mentioned in connection therewith. From a perusal of the documents mentioned therein it is clear that the petitioner did purchase a tractor and the mere fact that he did not get his tractor registered was no basis for refusing to recognise his ownership. It is nowhere written in para. 8 of M.L.R. 115/72 that it were only the registered tractors for which the benefit of additional area was to be given. The learned Member, Federal Land Commission, it will thus appear acted without lawful authority In importing a concept or consideration which was not contained in the relevant law on the subject. The order of the learned Member, Federal Land Commission, which is thus based both on misreading of record as well as of application of a wrong law on the subject, shall have to be declared as to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect against the petitioner. Hold accordingly.
2. The result is that the present writ petition is accepted and the order of the learned Member, Federal Land Commission is declared as to be without lawful authority with the result that the only operative order in the field is that of the learned Chief Land Commissioner dated 16-10-1972 which should be or should have been given effect. There shall be no order as to costs.