KARAM ELAHI CHAUHAN, J.----This case pertains to the first land reforms which were brought about by M. L. R. 64 of 1959. Under that Regulation, as its well known, generally two forms were to be filed by a declarant. One was L C Form No. I, in which a declarant was expected to indicate his entire holding and the other was L. C. Form No. Il in which he was required to give the choice of the area which he would like to retain with hire. It appears that the petitioner at some stagy wanted to file a fresh L C Form No. 11 but the learned Deputy Land Commissioner by means of his order dated 25-1-1963 (copy Anneaure'C') did not allow him to do so observing that the permission granted by the higher authorities, namely, the then Chief Land Commissioner vide his order/letter dated 27-2-1962 for filing a fresh choice/ form was conditioned with a proviso that the gifts made by the declarant earlier to his mother and wife were not to be reopened but am the declarant --petitioner wanted to reopen those ,gifts in his fresh L C Form No. II, therefore, filing of such a form was not being permitted. At that time the declarant also wanted recalculation of his land which was under some lift irrigation and in that connection he wanted a rebate of 10 per cent. The learned Deputy Land Commissioner did not accede to this request holding that such a rebate was available with respect to land in Ganji Bar Assessment Circle whereas no land of the petitioner was situated in that Circle.
2. The petitioner filed an appeal, but without any success, as the same was dismissed by the learned Land Commissioner, Multan on 11-6-1963 (copy Annexure B).
3. The petitioner filed a revision which also met the same fate and was dismissed by the learned Chief Lead commissioner by means of his order dated 30-5-1969 (copy Annexure "A'). Tae petitioner had come up in writ petition against the aforesaid proceedings and orders to this Court.
4. The first point argued by tine learned counsel for the petitioner was that the authorities concerned have acted without lawful authority in not allowing his client 10 per cent. Rebate on account of certain lift irrigated area. The contention has no merit. It has not been shown to us as to under which provision of law, rule, direction, scheme or policy, the aforesaid re5atel`t is being claimed. All that the learned counsel in this behalf could submit was that as in t e adjoining Ganji Bar Assessm ent Circle such a, rebate was being allowed therefore there was no justification as not to allow the rebate qua this land though it was outside the aforesaid circle. This is hardly a ground to declare tire orders of the relevant authorities to be without lawful authority on the subject in hand. Fixation of measure or extent of Produce Index Units qua particular types of land in different district area; or assessm ent circles, is the job of the concerned Land Reforms authorities and obviously this Court cannot take over that task. The plea raised, therefore, cannot be accepted, especially when in the area or the assessment circle where the land of the petitioner is situated no such rebate has been granted to any other person.
5. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has force. He submitted that so long as the extent of his holding, or to put it otherwise, the extent of the precise area permissible to be retained by him personally was not first determined the question of selection of sonic further area for making gifts to certain permissible rotations did not arise. The latter concession in the context could only be availed of if a declarant was told as to how much his holding is and what area he can retain on various counts so that he may determine as to from which land he may make gifts to his legally qualified relations. In this case since the claim to file L C Form-I and L C Form-II had boon conceded, therefore, the same could not have been made conditional with any stipulations in the matter of making gifts, selecting areas to be gifted, the choice of the donees and the extent of gifts to be made to them. The plea taken seems to have justification. The stage for making gifts could arise after a declarant's holding was determined first wheresfter he was given a free choice to retain whatever area he may like to retain for himself and thereafter could comp the stage for availing of the concession to gift away permissible area to certain qualified heirs. This is in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court lib Nawab Haji Khair Muhammad Khan v. The State (PLD 1966 SC 604), where it was hold that the stage to exercise choice could come only after the determination of a holding of a declarant. In the instant case since the learned Chief Land Commissioner was pleased to allow the declarant to file fresh L C Form-I and L C Form-II, he could not impose an embargo of the kind placed by him on the petitioner in the further matter of approving gifts earlier made or desired to be made. Whether these gifts, if earlier made, could be changed, revoked or withdrawn was a matter between the donor and the donees concerned and not between the Land l Reforms authorities whose sole job was first to calculate total holding of a declarant, then the basic area permissible to be retained by him personally or, in the form of permissible items and lastly to allow gifts if otherwise authorised.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the orders impugned in this writ petition on the subject in hand are declared to be without lawful authority only in so far as they placed or purported to place an embargo from the side of the Land Reforms authorities in the matter of tire impugned gifts, but it is clarified that whether the aforesaid gifts were made or were complete and whether they were otherwise revocable or not, and if so in what manner, through which forums, are all matters which arise between parties (or their successors in interest) and will have to be legally resolved by or between them in accordance with law for which purpose they will be at liberty to resort to such proceedings and remedies etc. As may be available to theca under the law of the land and that nothing written herein should be considered as recognising, validating or invalidating those gifts, which subject, as above analysed, is left open. Order accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.