' This is a suo motu revision in exercise of the powers conferred by para. 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 and initiated in consequence of a note recorded by the Inspection Team of the Federal Land Commission.
2. According to the memorandum of objections.
"The declarant is a Government servant of Revenue Department. He had acquired the following land In his name and that of his heirs during the specified period. {{TABLE}} Deh In whose name acquired Area 118 Self 31-07 124 Self 96-22 118 Muhammad Salim (son) 0-6(1/2)
118 Aijaz Ali (son) 0-37 128-32(1/2) {{TABLE}} ' The Deputy Land Commissioner, Tharparkar had decided this case. He has exempted the land acquired by the declarant by way of gift from his father-in-law Ali Muhammad from the provision of para. 10 of the Regulation. This order of the Deputy Land Commissioner is against the provisions of paragraph 10."
3(a) A careful examination of the Deputy Land Commissioner's Order No, LR-1794 dated 24-8-1972 shows that: 44 .............................................................. After 1-1-59 he received an area of 28-19 acres and 2-28 acres from his father-in-law as a gift."
' The Deputy Land Commissioner then goes on to pronounce that ; "This Land was acquired by his father-in-law before 1-1-59 and therefore will not come within the purview of para. 10 of the Regulation."
(b) The order of the Deputy Land Commissioner is patently perverse to say the least. Paragraph 10 of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 expressly and emphatically provides that : "(1) No person who is or has been in the Civil Service of Pakistan and has at any time between the first January 1959, and two years of his ceasing to be in service, acquired any land or any right or interest therein, by any means whatever, either in his own name or in the name of any of his heirs or any other person shall own or possess any land exceeding one hundred acres : ' Provided that, subject to the other provisions of this Regulation, any such person may, in addition to one hundred acres of land, own or possess any land which has devolved on him by inheritance or any other land not exceeding the area of the land so inherited, which has been acquired by him, in lieu of the land so inherited, whether by exchange or sale either in h's own name or in the name of any other person."
' Thus we are only and exclusively concerned with the declarant's acquisition after 1-1-59 of," any land or any right or interest therein, by any means whatever, either in his own name or in the name of any of his heirs or any other person . . ." and it is totally irrelevant and immaterial as to when the donor/father-in-law acquired the land. Even if the land had been acquired by the donor in the days of Alexander, or Muhammad Bin Qassim it will not make a scrap of difference because, the law expressly lays down that if the declarant has after 1-1-59 come to acquire any land it will activate the A operation of paragraph 10. Sine the so-called gifts from what appears to be an exceptionally generous father-in-law were made after 1-1-1959, these will count towards the holding of the declarant.
4. The perverse order of the Deputy Land Commissioner is therefore set aside. After allowing for the Exchange of 36-18 acres in deh 124 for 36-34 acres in deh 118 with the father-in-law, the correct determination of the declarant's holding will be as under: {{TABLE}} Deh Area Name When and how acquired
1. 118 28-19 acres Mohammad Ibrahim After 1-1-59-by way of gift declarant from father-in-law (Ali Mohammad.)
2. 124 2-28 " -do- In 1969--do-
3. 118 31-05 " Mat. Rukia Begum In 1969-by way of gift from
(wife) father-Ali Mohammad.
4. 124 96-22 " Mohammad Ibrahim In 1960-with prior permis- (declarant) sion of Deputy Commis. sioner, Tharparkar.
5. 118 0-6i Mohammad Saleem (son) Purchased by declarant in
6. 118 0-37 Mae Ali (son) 1962 and then gifted to son Purchased in 1970 in the name of the son. Total 159,371 acres. {{TABLE}} ' The holding shown by the Inspection Team is also declared incorrect. The firm and final holding of the declarant is therefore 159-37i acres. The Deputy Land Commissioner is directed to revise his .
5. The learned counsel urged that the gift of 31-05 acres to the declarant's wife Rukia Begum by her father Ali Muhammad was made by the donor from his own resources and therefore it is not to be counted towards the holding of the declarant. However, Notification No, SLC-3668/72/-2276 dated 17th July 1972 provides Inter alia that " .. The Sind Land Commission with a view to remove difficulties in implementation of paragraph 10 of the Regulation is pleased to clarify that
(1) inherited land of parent of a Government Servant, gifted/alienated by the parent to a Government servant or his heirs should be exempted from the operation of paragraph 10 as it is tantamount to inheritance. Further parents should include grand parents as well ;
(2) Land acquired by parent of a Government servant before 1st January 1959 and subsequently gifted/alienated by him to a Government servant or his Leirs should be exempted from the purview of paragraph 10 as these acquisitions were made before the specified period ;
(3) Land acquired by a parent against refugee resettlement claim and subsequently gifted/alienated to a Government servant or his heirs should be exempted from the purview of paragraph 10. If such land had been acquired against verified claims and the subsequent scaling down thereof and was gifted/alienated by a parent to a Government servant or his heirs, then such gift/alienation may be exempted from the purview of paragraph 10, as it has all the characteristics of inherited land ;
(4) That where the heirs of a Government servant have acquired any land through their own resources such land would not attract the application of paragraph 10 of the Regulation."
The emphasis is clearly on "inherited land of parent of a Government servant gifted/alienated by the parent to a Government servant or his heirs." Neither the father-in-law of the declarant is his parent within the scope and meaning of Regulation nor has he "gifted/alienated" his "inherited land".
6. Furthermore, Explanation I to Para. 7 provides that "For the purpose of this sub-paragraph and paragraph 10, an heir shall mean the owner's wife or wives, sons, daughters, father, mother, and sons and daughters of a deceased son or daughter." and a son-in-law is not therefore an heir of his father-In-law. In whichsoever way we take the gifts from the father-in-law, they cannot be excluded from the holding of the declarant Government servant and cannot escape o avoid the operation of paragraph 10.
7. Accordingly. I adjudge that an area admeasuring 59-37(1/2) acres of land held in excess of the permissible limit, is to be resumed from the Khata of the declarant under paragraph 13 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972.
Land ordered to be resumed.