' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---The background in which this appeal by leave of the Court against judgment dated 18-4-1993 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P. No,1126 of 1982 (and W.P.No,1483 of 1982) partly allowing the same by setting aside order dated 19-12-1981 passed by respondent- Member, Federal Land Commission resulting in the revision petition of the present appellant i.e, writ petitioner in W.P. No,1483 of 1982 being deemed to be pending and directing its disposal in accordance with law in the light of the observations made therein, is that the appellant-Roman Catholic Diocese, No,1, Lawrence Road, Lahore was granted exemption by the-then Government of West Pakistan through Deputy Secretary (G) for Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan, Home Department's letter dated 22-6-1959 from the applicability of M.L.R.
64. After the promulgation of Land Reforms Regulation 1972, hereinafter referred to as M.L.R. 115, and the promulgation of the Land Reforms Act, 1977, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the appellant made appropriate declarations thereunder before the concerned quarters. These declarations resulted in resumption of 25138 P.I.Us, under M.L.R. 115 leaving a balance of 14000 P.I.Us. With them as also resumption of 5658 P.I.Us. By Deputy Land Commissioner, Sheikhupura, respectively on 14-9- 1972 and 29-9-1977.
2. It was on 23-3-1981 that the appellant moved an application, invoking suo motu Revisional Jurisdiction of the Chief Land Commissioner Punjab under Rule 13 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1977, requesting for setting aside the orders of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Sheikhupura dated 14-9-1972 and 29-9-1977. The Chief Land Commissioner held the petition before him as barred by time as also sans merits.
3. The appellant made a revision petition before the respondent-Federal Land Commission under para. 29 of M.L.R. 115 read with section 27 of the Act. The revision petition was entertained by the respondent-Member, F.L.C. Under section 27 of the Act. He, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as also examining the record held the same liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. Paras. 6 to 10 of the judgment of respondent -Member, F.L.C. Dated 19-12-1981, read thus: "6 The learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length and the record of the case has been examined. The Revenue Record has also been scrutinised. The learned counsel has repeated the same arguments before this Tribunal which were advanced before the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab.
"7 The first point raised by him was about the law of limitation. According to him the orders passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner in 1972 and again in 1977 were ab initio void and illegal. He has quoted a number of authorities in support of his argument but he has not been able to prove the illegality if any in the impugned orders. The fact remains that the declarations on behalf of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lahore were duly filed by an authorised agent of the petitioner in 1972 and in 1977. The resumed area was granted only lease to the cultivating tenants in accordance with the law. The Reverend Bishop of Lahore has woken up from his deep slumber after 9 years in the case of 1972 Reforms and after 4 years in the case of 1977 Land Reforms, challenging the validity of the orders passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Sheikhupura. The Law had clearly and unambiguously provided for a procedure of appeals and revisions under these two land reforms.
The petitioner, who is the Bishop of the Church and thinks he is an aggrieved party, failed to make use of the remedy provided by the law. The learned Chief Land Commissioner has rightly dismissed the case of the petitioner on the ground of limitation.
"8. On merits as well the arguments of the learned counsel do not hold water. The point most highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the agricultural land of Roman Catholic Diocese was exempted from the Land Reforms Regulation of 1959 and that this exemption still held valid. This contention of the learned counsel is not tenable because the Land Reforms Regulation of 1972 and the Land Reforms Act, 1977 do not provide for any exemption to charitable or religious institutions. In fact para. 17 of the 1972 Regulations says that the provisions of paragraph 8 (which lays down limits on individual holdings) shall apply to every religious, charitable or educational society or institution and to every trust or Wakf, whether public or private. The exemption granted to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lahore under M.L.R. 64 became infructuous as soon M.L.R. 115 came into force in 1972. The argument of the learned counsel that this exemption is still operative in the light of the provisions of paragraph 32 of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 is not acceptable. The law brought about a drastic and fundamental change in 1972 in the field of Land Reforms, and religious and charitable institutions were not included in the list of persons which could be exempted from the provisions of paragraph 8 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The only legal entities which could be exempted by the Government were educational institutions, a cooperative farming society registered under the Cooperative Farming Ordinance, 1976 (XXII of 1976) or a Livestock Farm.
"9 Another point raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner was that same portion of the resumed land is situated within the municipal limits of Hafizabad, Bhai Pheru and Sangla Hill and, thus, were exempted from the operations of the Land Reforms Laws. The learned counsel has not quoted any of the specific provisions of the law in support of his contention.
"10 I endorse the findings of the learned Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab that the revision petition of the Reverand Catholic Bishop of Lahore is badly time barred and is devoid of merits and is, therefore, dismissed."
4. The learned Division Bench of the High Court made a reference to Qazalbash Waqf and others v.
Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab Lahore and others (PLD 1990 SC 90) "....In which it has been held that though the provisions of Land Reforms Law regarding lands attached to Waqf and Trust were repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam but the provisions thereof would remain effective as regards orders already passed prior to becoming the said declaration of repugnancy into effect, therefore, the orders passed in this case are not open to any objection on that socre." Paras. 6 and 7 of the judgment under appeal read thus:-- "6 As regards the plea of the petitioner that some land attached to the petitioner trust was exempted from resumption under notification dated 12-7-1972 issued under M.L.R. 115 being urban land, buildings having been constructed on it and the land included in the compunds of the said building, it may be observed that the Commission did not allow benefit under this notification on the assumption that the land was not situated in urban area. In the comments submitted in the writ petition by the respondents it appears to have been admitted that the said land was an urban land. It appears that this aspect of the case has not also received proper consideration on application of judicial mind, as such, order dated 19-12-1981 passed by the Member, Federal Land Commission is not sustainable.
"7 For the foregoing reasons both the writ petitions are partly accepted. Order dated 19-12-1981 passed by the Member, Federal Land Commission is hereby declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and quashed. In the result the revision petitions in which the said order was passed shall be deemed to be pending and the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. There will be no order as to costs."
5. Paras. 2 and 3 of Leave Grant Order dated 29-12-1994, read thus:-- "2 The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the learned Judges of the Division Bench have failed to determine the effect of the exemption granted by the Government of West Pakistan through Deputy Secretary (G) for Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan, Home Department's letter dated 22-6-1959 from the applicability of M.L.R. 64, inter alia, to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lahore, which remained operative by virtue of Regulation 32(2)(b) of M.L.R.
115. The Petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
"3 We have heard Messrs S.M. Zamir Zaidi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Syed Shabbir Rizvi, learned counsel for the respondents/caveators. A perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the above point which goes to the root of the matter has not been touched upon. If the above point was to be decided in favour of the petitioner, there would not have been any need to remand the case. We are, therefore, inclined to grant leave to consider, whether the above exemption granted on 22-6-1959 (at page 35 of the paper book) remains effective even under M.L.R. 115 issued on 1972. Leave is, accordingly, granted. Both the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the suit property till the disposal of the appeal arising out of the above petition."
6. It appears that the case of the appellant mainly revolves around the interpretation to be put on the grant of exemption to it from the applicability of M.L.R. 64 on 22-6-1959. Copy of the letter granting exemption to the appellant on 22-6-1959 is available at page- 35 of the Paper Book and the same reads thus:-- "LAND REFORMS No,HG-2-1/59 ' From S. Alamgir Esquire, C.S.P., Secretary Government of West Pakistan, Home Department.
' To ' The Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, "Dated Lahore, the 22nd June, 1959.
"Subject: Land Reforms application from Charitable and religious institution.
"Sir, "Reference your two endorsements No,89/409/2052, and No,89/409/2053, dated the 14th May, 1959, on the subject noted above.
"2. I am directed to state the Government have decided to grant exemption to Qizilbas Waqf of Lahore provided the entries in the Revenue Records are corrected immediately.
3. Government have also allowed exemption to "(1) The Roman Catholic Diocese of Lahore and "(2) .................................................................................................................................
7. Mr. S.M. Zamir Zaidi, learned Advocate Supreme Court has vehemently argued that the exemption granted to the appellant on 22-6-1959 did not cease to be operative after the promulgation of M.L.R. 115 and the Act. He has referred to clause (b) of sub-para. (2) of para 32 of M.L.R. 115 to contend that the Repeal of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation (Regulation 64 of 1959) does not affect"..(b) any right, title, privilage, obligation or liability acquired accrued or incurred thereunder; ...". According to him, in addition to the aforequoted provisions of para 32 of M.L.R. 115, the law on the subject, as contained in section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, also helps the appellant when clause (c) of section 6 ibid is brought to bear oft the case in hand. He also made a reference to Article 264 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in support of the plea that Repeal of Law under existing dispensation does not adversely affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred thereunder.
8. Mr. Sheikh Altaf Elahi, learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab has supported the judgment under appeal with the arguments that religious, charitable or educational society, institution and trust are subject to the provisions of para. 8 of M.L.R. 115 with the result that the appellant was obliged to make the declaration under both, M.L.R. 115 and the Act. Having done what was required of the appellant to do in 1972 and 1977, the appellant can ill-afford to get out of the situation which came in the case.
9. We have considered the arguments addressed at the Bar and have also perused the material on the record. It is common ground between the parties that grant of exemption to the appellant from the application of M.L.R. 115 was not subjected to any condition whatsoever, as was done in relation to Qizilbash Waqf, in letter dated 22-6-1959. The learned Law Officer was not quite right in relying upon para. 17 of M.L.R. 115 for the proposition that the applicability of para. 8 of M.L.R. 115 to the case of the appellant was in order.
10. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant basing the same on para. 32 of M.L.R. 115, section 6 of the General Clause Act and, to top it all, Article 264 of the Constitution has not even so much as been controverted by the learned Law Officer. The acquisition of the right/title/privilege by the appellant under clause (b) of sub-para. (2) of para. 32 of MLR 115 came about on 22-6-1959 and the Repeal of Regulation 64 of 1959 could not be considered, without more, to denude them from the said right title/privilege.
11. The learned Division Bench of the High Court did notice the plea of the appellant to the effect that they were granted exemption from resumption under Notification dated 12-7-1972, issued under M.L.R. 115, being urban land ,with buildings raised therein and the land included in the 'compounds of the said buildings, and held that as such plea was not considered by the respondent-Member, F.L.C, latter order dated 19-12-1981 cannot be sustained. The revision petition of the appellant was treated pending and the case was remanded to the respondent-Member, F.L.C., by the High Court. Had the existence of exemption-order dated 22-6-1959 been considered as extant, there would have been no need for remanding the case to the respondent-Member, Federal Land Commission by the High Court.
12. Moreover, paras. 8, 17 and 32 of M.L.R. 115, when read together, clearly being in to the fore that the effect of repeal of M.L.R. 64 is to be considered in line with, among others, the latter and subsequent provision contained in clause (b) of sub-para. (2) of para. 32 (ibid).
13. Looked at from whatever angle, the exemption granted to the appellant way back on 22-6-1959, which was saved under clause (b) of sub-para. (2) of Para. 32 of M.L.R. 115, holds the field even now.
14. Above are the reasons for our short order of even date, which reads thus: ' For the reasons to be recorded later on, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and it is held that the exemption granted to the appellant shall continue in view of para. 32(2)(b) of M.L.R.
115."