| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1975 SLG 3186 = 1975 SLD 3186 = 1975 PLD 316 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 1737 of 1973, decided on 28th March 1974.
Presented By: K. E. Chauhan and K. M. A. Samdani, JJ
Gul Muhammad Khan for Petitioner. A. Sattar Najam, A. A.-G.-II assisted by Sh. Zamir Hussain for
Respondents No. 1.
Writ Petition No. 1737 of 1973, decided on 28th March 1974.
Presented By: K. E. Chauhan and K. M. A. Samdani, JJ
Gul Muhammad Khan for Petitioner. A. Sattar Najam, A. A.-G.-II assisted by Sh. Zamir Hussain for
Respondents No. 1.
Malik MUHAMMAD KHAN-Petitioner
VERSUS
THE CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Law: Land Reforms Regulation, 1972
Section: 7(3), (1)
Land Reforms Regulation (M. L. R. 115 of 1972) Para. 7(3) & (1)-Sub-para. (3), application of-Sub-para. (3) applies only after transfer of land or creation of right etc. determined by Land Commission and not before-Excess land once determined and resumed under sub-para. (1), transfers no longer to be treated as void except in so as far as such relate to surrendered land. Date of hearing : 19th March 1974. JUDGMENT K. M. A. SAMDANI, J.-Malik Muhammad Khan petitioner is a declarant under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. In the course of the scrutiny of his declaration forms, a gift of land made by him in favour of his grand-sons in February 1970 was held to be void by the Land Commis sioner by his order dated the 15th of September 1972 on the ground that the grand-sons were non-haris. The petitioner appealed to the Chief Land Commissioner but the appeal was dismissed on the 9th of August 1973. Hence this writ petition. 2. It is an admitted fact that the disputed gift is in favour of non haris. But the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that since even after deducting the land involved in the disputed gift, the total holding of the petitioner exceeds the permissible limit and since he has already surrendered the excess land the Land Commission has no authority, in view of sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 7 of the Regulation to scrutinize under sub-paragraph (1) of the said paragraph any alienations made by the petitioner. In other words the learned counsel seeks to construe paragraph 7(3) of the Regulation to mean that where a declarant admits to be the holder of land in excess of the permissible limit on the 20th of December 1971, and surrenders the admitted excess land, sub-paragraph (3) of the…