' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- Petitioner is the wife of respondent No,2. The Nikah of the spouses was performed on 14-10-1971. The Nikahnama was drawn up in the forms prescribed under the Rules framed under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. By way of dower land measuring 6000 Kanals located in village Narwal, Tehsil and District Chakwal was given to the petitioner. Vide Report No,118 dated, 29-11-1971 respondent No,2 reported the said fact to the Patwari. However, it appears that mutation was. Not entered. Thereafter vide Report No,181, dated 3-2-1972 the said fact was reported and Mutation No,282 was entered. This mutation was put up before the Revenue Officer on 9-2-1972 who proceeded to reject the same and the reason recorded was that respondent No,2 in presence of Muhammad Din and Makhrab Khan Lumbardars had denied making the gift and has stated that he had obtained a decree from the Civil Court cancelling the gift. Upon promulgation of MLR 115 respondent No,2 filed declaration in the prescribed forms. In the said declaration he mentioned several alienations having been made by him including the said alienation of 750 acres by way of gift in favour of his wife at the time of his marriage. The forms were taken up by the Land Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division and scrutinized. All the alienations were found by him to be in order and declared valid except the said gift of 750 acres by respondent. No,2 in favour of his wife.
The reason noted in the order, dated 7-6-1972 was that the gift has not been incorporated in the revenue records. Respondent No,2 filed an appeal against the said order of the Land Commissioner. The appeal was heard by an Additional Chief Land Commissioner at Lahore who allowed the same on 9-7-1973. He found that the factum of the said gift stands mentioned in the Nikahnama and the matter was also reported to the Patwari on 29-11-1971. According to the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, the factum having been reported it was for the Revenue Officials to complete the formalities. As to the said reason noted by the Revenue Officer for ejection of mutation, the plea of respondent No,2 was that the mutation was taken up in his absence. In this regard the statements of the said two Lumbardars were recorded who stated that respondent No,2 was not present when the mutation was taken up. This order dated. 9-7-1973 was reviewed in suo motu jurisdiction of the Chief Land Commissioner. Both the copies of Nikahnama that are handed over to the bride and the bridegroom as well as copy lying in the office of the U.C. Were examined.
The Roznamcha Waqiati was also seen and the evidence of the said Lumbardars and the Revenue Officer who had rejected the mutation, recorded by the legal Advisor to the Commissioner, was also examined. After the said scrutiny of record the Chief Land Commissioner refused to interfere with the order, dated 9-7-1973 of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner vide his order, dated 30- 8-1974. Thereafter the Chairman of respondent No,1 took up the matter in suo motu revisional jurisdiction. He proceeded to hold that the Nikahnama is not a public document and further proceeded to set aside the findings of fact recorded by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner and the Chief Land Commissioner vide order, dated 6-12-1976.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the said wife (donee) of respondent No,2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not joined in any of the said proceedings when she is the beneficiary of the said gift. Further contends that it having been established that the gift was made at the time of Nikah, the mere fact that it was not incorporated in the revenue records would not give jurisdiction to the Land Reforms Authorities to set aside the gift. Respondent No,1 has been duly served but no one has turned up while respondent No,2 is a pro forma. We, therefore, proceed against the respondents ex parte.
4. We have gone through the several orders referred to by us above. It stands established that the petitioner is the wife of respondent No,2 and that the Nikah was performed on 14-10-1971. It also stands established that the factum of gift of the land in lieu of dower was also recorded in the Nikahnama itself. To our mind learned Chairman of respondent No,1 has erred while holding that Nikahnama is not a public document. This document has to be in the form prescribed by the Rules framed under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (Form II). It is to be filled up by a Nikah Khawan, who did the needful. When the Nikah form has been drawn up, it is to be signed by the bride, bridegroom or on their behalf, by the witnesses to the marriage and if need be by the witnesses to the appointment of the agent of the bride or the bridegroom. Thereafter it is registered by a Registrar who is to be licensed by the U.C. Under Rule 7 of the said. Rules. One copy is given to the bride, one to the bridegroom and one is kept with the Registrar while the fourth is forwarded to the U.C. Under section 5(6) of the Ordinance, a certified copy can be issued by the Registrar or by the Secretary of the U.C. And the said certified copy is to be admissible in evidence. Thus for all purposes the Nikah is a public document. Reference be made to the case of Mst. Zubaida Bibi and others v. Mst. Majidan and another (1994 SCM R 1978).
5. Transaction of transfer of land in lieu of dower stood completed at the time of Nikah which was performed on 14-10-1971. We do agree with the Chief Land Commissioner and the Additional Chief Land Commissioner that the transaction having thus been completed its incorporation in the revenue record was a mere formality. The respondent No,1 has, therefore, no jurisdiction to invalidate the said transaction as the same stood completed before 20-12-1971 i,e, the date prescribed in para.7(1)(a) of the MLR 115. We may here also refer to the case of Tahira Begum v.
Federal Land Commissioner, Islamabad 1983 CLC 663, where in similar circumstances ft was held that the transaction of dower stood completed on date of registration of marriage and the title in the land given in dower validly passed in favour of wife and the same could not be postponed till attestation of mutation.
6. We also find that all these proceedings took place without any I E notice to the petitioner and as such are void ab initio.
7. For all that has been discussed above this writ petition is allowed and the order dated, 6-12-1976 of the Chairman, Federal Land Commissioner is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and is accordingly set aside. No orders as to costs.