1. ---The petitioner had alienated (by way of gift) 174 acres 7 kanals and 3 marlas of land equivalent to 9645 P I Us. In favour of her husband vide Mutation No. 810 of (Mahal Mandan) attested on 13-9- 69.--- By the impugned order of the Member, Federal Land Commission, this very area was considered to be belonging to the petitioner on the ground that in the view of the learned Member, Federal Land Commission, that transaction of gift was not genuine. Mst. Dilshad Begum petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the respondent dated 8-5-76 whereby it was held that the said gift in favour of a husband being not recognised by the relevant provision of M. L. R. 115 could not be considered as a genuine transaction. In fact the impugned order of the Member. Federal Land Commis--sion affects the rights of the husband of the petitioner, if any in that the petitioner having already gifted the land in question to her husband and now also insisting that the said transaction is genuine has no more any interest left for herself in this land and, therefore, she is not competent, by her own admission, to challenge the impugned order of the learned Member, Federal Land Commission as otherwise she would rather, by implication be consi--dered to admit that the land in question still belongs to her.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that in fact the rights of the husband of Mst.
2. Dilshad Begum petitioner have been affected by the impugned order of the respondent and that it should be for the husband of the petitioner and not the petitioner to challenge the impugned order of the respondent and the proceedings taken before him, moreso when the husband of the petitioner was not even heard much less enabled to defend his rights, in that forum.
3. Therefore, without going into the details, as to the propriety of the impugned order of the respondent viz-a-viz his conclusion that under the law in force no gift of the question land could be made by the petitioner in favour of her husband, we are of the firm view that Mst. Dilshad Begum petitioner under the circumstances and in an effort to enforce her own right in respect of the land in question, cannot challenge the impugned order of the respondent through this constitutional petition, as she has by her own admission already divested herself of all legal rights in this land.
4. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.