Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ALI VS Respondent: MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION
1989 M L D 4426
1989 M L D 4426
[Karachi]
Before Ajmal Mian, CJ. and Abdur Rahim Kazi, J
MUHAMMAD ALI and 3 others--Petitioners
Versus
MEMBER FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION and 5 others--Respondents
Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-1072 and D-1076 of 1981, decided on 26th January, 1989.
Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 (MLR 115)--
---Para. 29--Land Reforms Act (II of 1977), S.25--Notification No.II 1977 LR 1-78 dated 23 September, 1978--Abatement of pending proceedings--Notification, dated 23-9-1978 issued by Government of Pakistan directing that proceedings in' cases under paragraph 29 of M.L.R. 115 pending before Federal Land Commission on enactment of Act II of 1977 shall not stand abated, held, was ultra vires the provisions of section 25 of said Act--Federal Government had power under S.25 of the Act to direct that a case or class of cases would not stand abated but it could not issue notification directing that all cases which were pending before Federal Land Commission before enactment of said Act shall not be abated--Impugned Notification in fact purported to nullify effect of section 25 of Act II of 1977 as a whole and therefore ri was ultra vires of powers of Federal Government--Impugned orders were declared as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect in circumstances.
Nemo for Petitioners.
Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No.l.
Date of hearing: 26th January, 1989.
JUDGMENT
AJMAL MIAN, CJ.--B), this common judgment, we intend to dispose of the above two petitions, as they involve the common point of law. Both the petitions are directed against the orders passed by respondent 1 in exercise of suo motu revisional power under paragraph-29 of the MLR-115 (hereinafter referred to as the MLR) invalidating/not accepting certain transactions in respect of the agricultural land. The admitted position seems to be that in both the petitions the proceedings were pending before the respondent 1 when Act-II of 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enacted of which Section 25 provides as follows:
"25. Abatement of pending proceedings.--All proceedings pending before the Federal Land Commission shall, on commencement of this Act, stand abated unless the Federal Government directs otherwise in a case or class of cases."
In terms of the above-quoted section 25 the above pending proceedings stood abated unless otherwise would have been directed by the Federal Government in a case or class of cases. It seems that the Government of Pakistan in exercise of power conferred by section 25 of the Act issued Notification No.II.1977 LR 1-78 dated 23-9-1978 directing that the proceedings in cases under paragraph-29 of the MLR pending before the Federal Land Commission on the enactment of the Act shall not stand abated and further delegating the power to the Chairman of the Federal Land Commission under paragrah-29 of the MLR.
In a number of cases decided by us, the first being the case of the Sher Muhammad and others v. Member, Federal Land Commission and others (C.P.No.D-2069/1979) decided on 1-11-1988, we have held that the above notification is ultra vires the provisions of the section 25 of the Act. It may be advantageous to reproduce the para-4 of the above unreported judgment, which reads as follows:
"We are inclined to hold that under above-quoted section 25 the Federal Government had the power to direct that a case or class of cases would not stand abated but it could not have issued the impugned Notification directing that all the cases which were pending before the Federal Land Commission before the enactment of the Act shall not be abated. The impugned Notification in fact purports to nullify the effect of Section 25 of the Act as a whole and, therefore, it is ultra vires of the powers of the Federal Government. In this view of the matter, the impugned notice issued in pursuance of the above impugned Notification also cannot be sustained."
We see no reason to take different view than the view which we had taken in the above-referred case. We, therefore, allow the two petitions and declare the impugned orders as being without lawful authority and of no legal B effect. However, there will be no order as to costs. A copy of this order may be sent under registered acknowledgement due to the petitioners in both the petitions.
MYH/M-849/K??????????
Petitions allowed.