' The brief facts of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner's father Sh. Abdul Aziz sold land measuring 159 Kanals and 18 marlas situated in Chak No,139/JB Tehsil Chiniot District Jhang to the respondents through a registered sale-deed, dated 15-1-1975. The Mutation No,600, dated 24-6- 1975 was sanctioned in favour of the vendees. The petitioner being a son of Abdul Aziz moved an application on 17-5-1976 to the Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Land Commissioner, Jhang for declaration of the sale transaction and the mutation to be void, being violative of the provisions of section 24(3) of the Martial Law Regulation No,115 on the basis that the petitioner's father alongwith Allah Bakhsh, Ghazi and Daulat purchased land measuring 10 Acres, 36 Kanals and 19 Marais in open auction on 26-4-1958 for Rs,3,913 each having 1/4th share in the purchased land. The sale was confirmed on 29-10-1958 by the competent authority and the price of the purchased land was paid on 9-2-1961. In this way on 15-1-1975 the petitioner's father had total ownership of the land measuring 181 Kanals, 13 Marlas in the Chak No,139/JB, Tehsil Chiniot District Jhang, therefore, he entered into a sale transaction with the respondents Nos.2 to 6 and sold away the land measuring 159 Kanals, 18 Marlas of his ownership. This application was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Jhang on 18-10-1976 on the basis that the second property was not acquired by the father of the petitioner at the time of the sale of the questioned property as no proprietary rights were confirmed on the father of the petitioner and the registered deed was also not executed and as such he could not sell this land at the time of the sale of the land in question, therefore, finding no merits in the application the same was rejected.
' The petitioner filed an appeal before the Land Commissioner, Sargodha Division, 'Sargodha under Rule 11 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972 against the order, dated 18-10-1976 passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Jhang dismissing the petition made under section 24(3) of the Martial Law Regulation No,115. On this score after disposing of land measuring 159 Kanals, 18 Marlas and 22 Kanals of land were still left with Abdul Aziz vendor, although under the law he was bound to retain the same at least 12 and a half Acres (100 Kanals), therefore, the sale was void. It was also shown in Paragraph-6 of the Appeal that the Deputy Commissioner/Collector had rejected the application as a Deputy Land Commissioner vide order, dated 18-10-1976 but inadvertently omitted to sign as Deputy Land Commissioner, although the application was addressed to the Deputy Land Commissioner. The Commissioner, Sargodha Division Sargodha heard the appeal and remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Jhang vide order, dated 1-2-1977 for enquiry as to whether the auction had been confirmed/approved or not. If it had been approved and other formalities with regard to the possession of the land and deposit of the purchase price had been completed then the termination should be considered as void, or in case the said formalities were completed after the said date, or had not been completed as yet, the transaction would be considered as valid. The case be decided afresh.
' The respondent went in revision before the learned Member, Board of Revenue that Abdul Aziz sold land measuring 159 Kanals and 18 Macias his total holding in Chak No,139/JB, Tehsil Chiniot District Jhang to the respondents and sale Mutation No,1600 was entered on 24-6-1975 and was duly sanctioned on 11-5-1975. The respondents on 23-12-1975 filed a suit for pre-emotion which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge,. Chiniot on 27-4-1976. The learned Member, Board of Revenue vide short order set aside the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) vide order,' dated 15-11-1979 by giving an observation that the order of the Additional Commissioner is without jurisdiction because the Deputy Commissioner/Collector had refused to review Mutation No,600, dated 24-6-1975 for which the respondent had applied and the order of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector was of executive nature against which no appeal/revision lies. This order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue is assailed in the instant writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Member, Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction as the matter fell within the ambit of section 24(3) of the Martial Law Regulation No,115 and under the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972 the application was decided by the Deputy Commissioner as Deputy Land Commissioner and the appeal was also decided by the Additional Commissioner as Land Commissioner, therefore, the revision was not competent before the learned Member, Board of Revenue under section 184 of the Land Revenue Act as he was not the Chief Land Commissioner and the Revision Petition was time-barred. In this way the bar contained in section 26 of the Regulation has been contravened. The Revenue Authority being not a Court of general jurisdiction the order of the Tribunal constituted under the Land Reforms Regulation could not fall within its domain, therefore, the Land Reforms Rules, 1972 prescribes the time 20 days for preferring a revision and the revision of the respondents was time-barred by 13 days. The respondent No,1 has failed to appreciate that the application filed by the petitioner on 17-5-1976 before the learned Deputy Land Commissioner was for declaration of the sale transaction and the consequent mutation to be void. Further submitted that after payment of purchase price of the land the petitioner's father and his co-sharer had become full owners of the land situated in Chak No,139/JB, Tehsil Chiniot District Jhang under the said sale through open auction and the absence of execution of the deed of conveyance would not in slightest degree detract from their ownership of the land and a full owner has got the right to dispose of his land even though no mutation has been entered in his name through a formal deed of conveyance. Relied on Ilam Din v. Muhammad Din PLD 1964 SC 842, Zaffar Ullah Khan and others v. Abdur Rehman and others 1985 MLD 1594, Faiz Ali, deceased, represented by Mst. Nur Jan and another v. Mst, Rafia Jan and 2 others PLD 1956 Lah.
94 and Rehmat Ullah and others v. Muhammad Ismail and others PLD 1958 (W.P.) Revenue 77 where it is held that proprietary title had passed when she had made full payment of price of land. He further submitted that the impugned order was not a speaking order, and therefore, this judgment cannot be sustained. Reliance is placed on Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 173 where it is held that summary disposal of petition (involving important legal question) was not approved by Supreme Court. He has also relied on Gouranga Mohan Sikdar v. The Controller of Import and Export and 2 others 1970 SCMR 323 where it is held that writ petition raising serious question of law was disposed of by a single sentence order reading "this application is rejected as there is no substance in it". Order, held, does not disclose proper application of mined of High Court to merits of case and not a speaking order.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other side, submitted that the sale-deed, dated 15-1-1975 and Mutation No,600, dated 24-6-1975 are not hit by Martial Law Regulation No,115 as the vendor had given an affidavit which is Annexure R/4 with the writ petition that he does not own any land except the land under sale. He submitted that soon after the sale the petitioner being the son of the vendor was afters the respondent vendees as he filed a suit for pre-emption and in the suit for preemption he does not write down the ground that his father owned 22 Kanals of land besides the land under questioned sale. This plaint was rejected on 15-7-1976 by the learned Civil Judge. He further submitted that in fact the original auction holder was Allah Bakhsh and Abdul Aziz participated, no possession was transferred to Abdul Aziz as there is no entry in the Khasra Girdawri or in the Revenue Record at the time when the auction took place and even till the deed of conveyance was prepared in respect of Allah Bashsh, Ghazi and Daulat. He placed reliance on Hashmat Ali and 2 others v. Province of the Punjab 1994 SCMR 30 where it is held that the Government had neither accepted/approved auction in question nor accepted possession as delivered to bidders in pursuance of a legal order---Possession was not supported by any document conferring legal title---No agreement of sale having been executed, sale was not complete. Government was not bound by terms and conditions of auction to accept the sale in question. No title, thus, had passed on to appellants (bidders). Further relied on Ibrahim v. Rajji 1956 (W.P.) 609 and. Rehmat Ali v. The Revenue Board, West Pakistan, Lahore 1973 SCMR 342. He further submitted that from the Revenue Record it does not transpire that any possession was delivered to Abdul Aziz nor his name was recorded in the Revenue Record. The Provincial Government is continuously appearing in the ownership column from the year 1958 till the time of the mutation of the auction purchase that is 1980. In the absence of any possession or in the absence of the name of the vendor in the ownership column the Martial Law Regulation No,115 is not attracted to the present case.
4. I have heard, the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.
5. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application given to the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Jhang was under section 24(3) of the Martial Law Regulation No,115. It was disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner as Deputy Land Commissioner, although the order of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector omitted the same. I have seen the application which is Annexure "A" with the record, although it is written but I have seen the order. It is not treated as an application under section 24(3) of the Martial Law Regulation No,115, as according to the Rule 8 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972 every application or written statement filed by an applicant in any proceeding shall be drawn up and verified in the manner provided for the drawing up and verification of a plaint or written statement in the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of civil suit.
Chapter IV of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972 is reproduced below:-- "Rule 10. Form of appeal.--- (1) Every appeal shall be preferred in the form of a memorandum and shall be authenticated by the signature of the appellant or his duly authorised representative, recognized agent or counsel.
(2) The memorandum shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the order appealed against and of all the documents on which reliance has been placed in the memorandum.
(3) the memorandum shall set forth concisely and under distinct heads the grounds of objection to the order appealed against and shall not contain any narrative. All such grounds shall be numbered consecutively. Rule-11. Forum of appeal.-- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed under the provisions of the Regulation may file an appeal to--
(a) the Deputy Land Commissioner, when the order has been passed by an Assistant Land Commissioner, or a Sub-Assistant Land Commissioner:
(b) the Land Commissioner, when the order has been passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner; Provided that-
(i) When any such order is modified or reversed on appeal by the Deputy Land Commissioner, the order made by the Land Commissioner on further appeal to him shall be final, and,
(ii) When an original order is confirmed on first appeal, a further appeal shall not lie.
(2) All appeals shall be presented within twenty days from the date of the order appealed against."
6. The application which is Annexure-A with the instant writ petition shows that it is just one page application. It is not filed according to the procedure laid down as provided under Rules 8 of the Land Reforms Rues, 1972, therefore, it seems that this order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner as Collector and not Deputy Commissioner as Deputy Land Commissioner and further the order under appeal also shows that it was taken on the revenue side by the Commissioner, Jhang not as Land Commissioner, but as Commissioner, Jhang. Even the Board of Revenue has taken up this matter on the revenue side and decided the same. Rule 12, which is reproduced below, shows:-- "Review.--- (1) The Chief Land Commissioner, a Land Commissioner, a Deputy Land Commissioner, an Assistant Land Commissioner, or a Sub-Assistant Land Commissioner, may at any time of his own motion or within twenty days from the date of the impugned order on an application of any party interested made to him in that behalf, review, and on so reviewing modify, reverse, or confirm, any order passed by himself or by any of his predecessorsin-office. The proviso to this Rule gives a bar to review unless obtaining the sanction of the next immediate 'authority.
(2) An appeal shall not lie from an order refusing to review or confirming or review a previous order."
The order, dated 18-10-1976 passed by the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Mang shows that he had refused to review the mutation, therefore, no appeal under Rule 12(2) of the Land Reform Rules, 1972 lies from an order refusing to review or confirming on review a previous order. Therefore, the observations made by the learned Member, Board of Revenue were correct. The original petition filed before the District Collector itself was violative of Rule 8 of the Land Reforms Rules, 1972.
Therefore, these matters were taken up by the Revenue Courts on the executive side. So, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no substance.
7. Now the second question is whether the vendor Abdul Aziz was the owner of 159 Kamls, 18 Malras exclusively at the time of the sale and the impugned mutation and he was holding 22 Kanals as an auction bidder at the time of the aforesaid sale. I have carefully seen the Revenue Record which is produced by the petitioner. Khasra Girdawris for the years Kharif-Rabi 195657, Kharif-Rabi, 1957-58, Kharif-Rabi 1958-59, Kharif-Rabi 1960-61, Kharif-Rabi 1961-62, Kharif-Rabi 1962-63 and Kharif-Rabi 1963-64 upto Kharif 1976 do not show Abdul Aziz son of Sher Muhammad in possession of the property under open auction. In the column of ownership the Provincial Government is coming as owner and in the cultivation column Ali Muhammad son of Amir as Garinda Gher Dakhilkar AR/ is coming, in the column of cultivation till Rabi, 1960 and from Kharif, 1960 till Kharif, 1972 the Provincial Government is recorded in the column of ownership and Allha Bakhsh son of Namdar, caste Baloch as Nilaam Garinda and in the cultivation column Allah Bakhsh son of Namdar, caste Baloch is recorded as Nilaam Garinada. Same is the case in the Khasra Girdawri for the years 1972-73, 1973- 74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 and it is only for the first time in the Mutation No,19, dated 12-6-1980 the name of Abdul Aziz is recorded alongwith Allah Bakhsh son of Namdar, Ghazi son of Ditta and Daulat son of Karim in the ownership column. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the purpose of Martial Law Regulation the person should be deemed to be the owner even without conferment of proprietary rights. The petitioner was bound to bring into the notice of the Deputy Assistant Land Commissioner or the Deputy Land Commissioner by a verification application according to the Rule 8 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 and prove that the vendor Abdul Aziz had 22 kanals besides 19 Kanals and 18 Marlas at the time of the impugned sale. The strong facts should come supported by an affidavit and by the relevant document in the form of a civil suit but merely giving an application was not sufficient. The cogent ground should exist that the impugned sale and the impugned mutation were violative of Martial Law Regulation No,115. This was not done. The matter was disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner as a Collector.
He had refused to review the earlier order passed on the impugned mutation by the A.C.1. No appeal lies against a review petition. Refusing to review an order passed by the competent just writing or confirming on review a previous order byjustwriting {{URDU TEXT}} even if it is presumed that an application is given to the Deputy Land Commissioner in view of section 24(3) of the Martial Law Regulation No,115 it was not duly verified application as provided by Rule 8 of the Land Reforms Rules and was liable to be dismissed on its face and was not entertain able by the Deputy Commissioner who otherwise dealt the same on the revenue side.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in the instant writ petition which is dismissed.
9. No order as to costs. #EndJudgment