' The petitioner Umar Draz Khan is a declarant/landowner. He applied for exchange of his land situated in Village Kot Khaira, Tehsil and District Jhang with an equivalent area of land of his mother Mat. Jindwaddi in the same village. To avoid the unnecessary details, the exchange was allowed by the Deputy Land Commissioner on 6-7-1973. However, the said order was reversed in review by a successor of the learned Deputy Land Commissioner by means of his order, dated 4- 12-1973. The petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Land Commissioner on 26-12-1973. The petitioner filed a revision which also met the same fate and was dismissed by the learned Addl. Chief Land Commissioner, Lahore, on 15-5-1974. The petitioner has come up in writ, petition against the aforesaid proceedings and orders to this Court.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order, dated 4-12-1973, was passed by Ch. Muhammad Ishaq, Deputy Land Commissioner, Jhang, whereby he reviewed the order of his predecessor Mr. G. M. Piracha, dated 6-7-1973, but while so doing, his successor Deputy Land Commissioner did not obtain the prior permission of the Land Coramissioner as contemplated in rule 12 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972, and from that point of view, the order of Ch. Muhammad Ishaq, Deputy Land Commissioner, dated 4-12-1973, is a nullity and void ab kid, The contention seems to have merit. It is self-evident from the order of Ch. Muhammad Ishaque, Deputy Land Commissioner that he did not obtain any prior sanction of the Land Commissioner for reviewing the order of his predecessor. The result is that the order, dated 4-12- 1973, passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, is void ab initio and any structure based thereon in the form of an order passed in appeal on 26-12-1973, or in revision on 15-5-1974, would also be a nullity. See Yousaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia and 2 others (1). I hold accordingly.
3. It appears that the holding of the petitioner was in excess of the permissible limits and he was required to surrender the aforesaid excess to the Land Reforms authorities. However, what the petitioner did was that he surrendered that land which he had obtained in exchange from his mother. The Land Reforms authorities were of the view that under para. 11 of the M.L.R. 115 of 1972, exchange was permissible only for consolidation of the holdings of a declarant and not of the holdings of any member of his family and nor for surrendering that very land which a declarant may have obtained in exchange. On this ground, therefore, they held the present exchange to be invalid. This Court has already dealt with this matter in Muhammad Hayat Uliah Khan and 6 others v. Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi and another (2) where it was held that exchange for the consolidation of the land of a family member of a declarant could also be made and that it was not necessary that the declarant must retain the land obtained by him in exchange or that he could not surrender the same so long as the land given by him in exchange to the other party did lead to the consolidation of that other party's holding, It was further held that in the matter of exchange of land, the point as to whether the land proposed to be exchanged was tenanted or untenanted bad no bearing on the validity of exchange. In that instant case, the exchange was with the mother of the petitioner and from the point of view fell quite within the scope of para. 11 of M,L,R. 115 of 1972. The produce index value of both the lands was also the same and from that aspect there was nothing objectionable in the exchange, especially, a when it did lead to consolidation of holdings of the land of the mother of that petitioner. In these circumstances, the Land Reforms authorities acted without lawful authority in refusing to accept the exchange on extraneous considerations not warranted by law. The result is that this writ petition is accepted and the orders impugned in this petition are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence against the petitioner and are hereby quashed with the result that the only operative order which remains in the field is that of Mr. G. M. Piracha, Deputy Land Commissioner, 'hang, dated 6.7-1973. Order accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
(1) PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 104 (2) PLD 1976 Lah. 1484