' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This appeal, with the leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment, dated 29-3-1994, passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in Writ Petition No,421 of 1977/BWP.
2. The facts as pleaded in the petition are that respondent No,1, Sardar Noor Ahmed Khan, was the owner in possession of considerable agricultural land, situated in different Revenue Estates of Tehsil Sadiqabad, District Rahimyar Khan. By means of different transactions of sale, incorporated in six mutations, he transferred his agricultural land in various revenue estates to respondents Nos.2 to 8.
In the declaration filed by him under the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), he showed all the transactions of sale made by him in between the period from 1- 3-1967 to 20-12-1971 in the shape of sale etc.
3. The Deputy Land Commissioner, Rahim Yar Khan, vide his order, dated 8-6-1972, accepted the declaration filed by respondent No,1 and declared all the transactions made by him as valid. The decision of the Deputy Land Commissioner was upheld by the Land Commissioner as well as by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab. The Federal Land Commission, in the exercise of its suo motu revisional jurisdiction, by its order, dated 26-10-1976 declared these transactions as void and directed the Land Reforms Authorities to redetermine the entitlement of Sardar Noor Ahmed Khan, respondent No,1.
4. The respondents filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 23-2-1977, which was subsequently transferred to Bahawalpur Bench, where it was decided by a learned Division Bench vide the impugned judgment, dated 29-3-1994, whereby the writ petition was allowed and the order of the Federal Land Commission, dated 26-10-1976 was declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
5. The High Court has set aside the order, dated 26-10-1976, on two-fold grounds: first that the suo motu power of the Federal Land Commission under paragraph 29 of the Regulation was almost analogous to the revisional powers of Criminal Courts under section 435, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, the orders, of the subordinate authorities could only be set aside if found to be suffering from excess of jurisdiction, or in defiance of express provision of law; and secondly that the provision relating to the curbs embodied in the Regulation were declared repugnant to the injunctions of Islam by the Shariat Appellate Bench of this Court in the case of Qazalbash Waqf v.
Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore (PLD 1990 SC 99). The learned Judge in Chambers took the view that the Officer-on-Special-Duty (OSD), while exercising his suo motu revisional powers did not at all examine the propriety and legality of the order passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, dated 8-6-1972 and instead assumed the original jurisdiction of the Deputy Land Commissioner/Land Commissioner and by doing so he clearly exceeded his jurisdiction.
6. Leave to appeal was granted to consider the following questions of law:--
(1) Whether the Federal Government in exercise of its suo motu power under paragraph 29 of M.L.R.
115, could not disturb or interfere with a finding of fact recorded by subordinate Land Reform Authorities ? And
(2) Whether in view of the decision of Federal Shariat Court in Qazalbash Waqf v. Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore (PLD 1990 SC 99) and the decision of Shariat Appellate Bench of this Court in the case of Government of Pakistan v. Qazalbash Waqf, Lahore (1993 SCM R 1697), the decision rendered by the Federal Land Commission on 26-10-1976 could be declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect in the writ petition filed in 1977 though decided on .29-3-1994 ?
7. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant argued that the Qazalbash Waqf case (supra) shall not affect those cases in which decisive steps have taken, in that, the provisions held to be repugnant to the injunctions of Islam in the case of Qazalbash Waqf (supra) would cease to affect orders prior to the date fixed therein i.e, 23-3-1990. In the instant case, the O.S.D. Passed the order in exercise of his suo motu revisional jurisdiction on 26-10-1976. Mr. Muhammad Mahmood Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents, was unable to persuade us that the judgment of the Federal Land Commissioner impugned before the High Court was hit by the law laid down in Qazalbash Waqf (supra). Be that as it may, paragraph 29 of the Regulation containing suo motu revisional jurisdiction has not been held as repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. It is clearly pointed out in the case of Qazalbash Waqf (supra) that the declaration given therein was to take effect on 23-3-1990 and as such the provisions of the Regulation which were as executory were not to be, in any manner, affected thereby. Refer Chief Land Commissioner Punjab v. Chief Administrator of Auqaf Punjab (PLD 1998 SC 132). Thus visualized, the decision rendered by the Federal Land Commission on 26-10-1976 could not be declared as without lawful authority in the writ petition filed in 1977 though decided on 29-3-1994, in view of the decision of the Federal Shariat Court in Qazalbash Waqf (supra) and decision of the Shariat Appellate Bench of this Court in Qazalbash Waqf (supra).
8. There is, however, no cavil with the proposition canvassed by Mr. Muhammad Mahmood Bhatti that the Federal Land Commission, while exercising suo motu powers under paragraph 29 of the Regulation, had only powers to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order of the Chief Land Commissioner and that the wording of paragraph 29 corresponds with the wording of section 435 of Cr.P.C. And the limitation enforced thereon would also be applicable to the exercise of powers under paragraph 29. This plea also finds support from the judgment of this Court in Mst.
Tayyaba Khanam v. Chairman, Federal Land Commission (1984 SCMR 1110). We are, however, not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the Federal Land Commission in exercise of its suo motu jurisdiction failed to examine the propriety, correctness and legality of the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and instead dealt with the matter as if it was exercising the original jurisdiction. Suffice it to say that, after thorough examination of record, mutation No,72 of village Muridabad was found to be ante-dated, inter alia, on the ground that there were no supporting entries of the mutation entry, its verification or its attestation in the Roznamcha Karguzari Mr. Muhmood Bhatti strongly relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Lahore High Court in Sain Bux v. Officer-on-Special Duty, Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi (1980 CLC 1395) to contend that the mere ground that entries are not made in the Roznamcha, would be no legal justification for disregarding the mutation. Reference was also made to the case of Federal Land Commission v. Sardar Muhammad Aurangzeb Khan (1997 SCM R 911), to contend that a mutation is deemed to be complete on the date it is attested and the mere fact that entry of mutation was carried into the record of rights was not sufficient to hold the sale invalid. The above decisions are distinguishable and confined to the facts of those case. Here, a finding of fact has been recorded by the Federal Land Commission that the Mutation was ante-dated, to which no exception, can be taken, therefore, such a finding of fact was not open to scrutiny in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. Mutation No,89 of Chak Gul Muhammad, was also held to be lacking bona fides, inasmuch as, the consideration money paid was Rs,200 per acre as against average sale price of Rs,500 per acre. This was also an alienation of sale in favour of wife and sons and daughters of brother in respect of 238 acres, 7 Kanals and 14 Marlas. This finding of fact was also not open to challenge in writ jurisdiction. Mutation No, 328 of Village Karak a sale transaction in favour of brother's wife and brother's sons and daughters in respect of 262 acres, 7 Kanals, 14 Marlas was also found to be ante-dated and subsequent to 20-12-1971. This finding of fact was again unchallengeable before the High Court. Mutation No,152 of Village Sardarpur was an alienation of sale in favour of brother's daughters in respect of 78 acres, '2 Kanals, 18 Marlas. This mutation, allegedly entered on 18-4-1971, was also held as ante-dated and subsequent to 20-12- 1971. Same is the status of mutation No,70 of Kaura Dahra and Mutation No,72 of Machhka, which were found to be ante-dated by obvious interpolations in the relevant record.
' The learned Chief Land Commissioner while examining the legality, propriety and correctness of the orders passed by the subordinate Land Reforms authorities came to the following conclusion:- - "The learned counsel for the declarant and respondent have contended that the discrepancies of the Revenue Record cannot be used to their disadvantages. Such arguments would have been acceptable if the discrepancies were uncorroborated by other circumstantial evidence. It is the bounden duty of those acting to implement the Land Reforms Regulation to follow the dictates laid in para. 7 of the Regulation. The bona fides as also the fact whether or not the transaction took place before 20-12-1971 have to be carefully scrutinized. In such scrutiny the proceedings of the Mutation alone are not sufficient, since the Mutation sheets can easily be inserted. The corroboration has to be found in the entries of Roznamcha Waqiati and Roznamcha Karguzari. If the corroboration is lacking and there is substantial evidence of the lack of bona fides then the transaction cannot be held as valid. In this case the findings has been reached after using this criteria.
' The result of these orders would be that Land equivalent to voided transaction would be resumed by the D.L.C., after allowing the limit of 12,000 plus to the declarant."
8. The inference drawn by the Chief Land Commissioner appears to be proper and supported by evidence on record. Be that as it may, the Regulation being confiscatory in nature and an appropriation without any compensation, the Supreme Court, in order to do complete justice under Article 187(1) of the Constitution has jurisdiction and power to go into the facts in such case. After thorough re-appraisal of the material on record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the well-reasoned order passed by the Chief Land Commissioner, supported by material on record, does not suffer from the any illegality. Clearly, the respondents cannot be permitted to retain the illegal gain in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. Resultantly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court with no order as to costs.