Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Muhammad Sardar Khan VS Respondent: Federal Land Commission of Pakistan Honorable Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad Syed Moazzam Ali Shah, Rana Aziz Ahmad , Anwaar Hussain
CITATION: 2026 YLR 2212 CASE: 2026L4100 TITLE: Muhammad Sardar Khan VS Federal Land Commission of Pakistan Honorable Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad Syed Moazzam Ali Shah, Rana Aziz Ahmad , Anwaar Hussain COURT: LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE YEAR: 2026 JOURNAL: YLR ============================================================
2002 Y L R 2026 Y L R 2212 [Lahore] Before Ahmad Nadeem Arshad and Malik Waqar Haider Awan, JJ Muhammad Sardar Khan and 4 others---Petitioners Versus Federal Land Commission of Pakistan and 2 others---Respondents Writ Petitions Nos. 373, 4486 and 4487 of 1981, decided on 16th October, 2025. Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 [MLR No.115 of 1972]--- ----Para.7(I)(b)---Land Reforms Act (II of 1977), S.25---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Land holdings---Declarants holding land in excess of ceiling---Resumption of excess land by the authorities---Declarants having already made oral gift---Effect---Exclusion of gifted land from declaration, plea of---Permissibility---Briefly, the petitioners, being declarants under Martial Law Regulation-115, transferred portions of their agricultural land to their brothers and sister through two oral gift mutations in 1970 which were excluded from their declaration forms---Upon scrutiny, the Land Commissioner declared one mutation void and the other partly void---After successive appeals and revisions, the Additional Chief Land Commissioner and the Federal Land Commission declared both mutations entirely void for the purposes of land reforms and ordered resumption of excess land---Out of the divergent pleas of the parties, imperative questions requiring determination before the High Court were as to whether agricultural land gifted by the petitioners to their siblings through oral gift mutations, made while their father was still alive, could be excluded from their landholding under the land reform laws, and whether earlier land resumption proceedings became invalid or stood abated after certain provisions of the land reform laws were later declared un-Islamic? ---Held: Admittedly, at the time of attestation of the oral gift mutations, the father of both the donors(Petitioners Nos.1 and 2) and the donees (Petitioners Nos.3 to 5) was alive---During his lifetime, there could be no question of receiving any inheritance by the donees, and consequently, the issue of deprivation from their rightful shares of inheritance did not arise---Admittedly, when petitioners Nos.3 to 5 received the land through the aforementioned oral gift mutations, they were not deprived of any due share of inheritance---Accordingly, the Land Reforms Authorities rightly scrutinized the oral gift mutations under Paragraph 7(I)(b) of MLR-115 of 1972 and lawfully declared the said gift transactions as void being not bona fide transactions---No doubt, where any transaction was declared void by the Land Reforms Authorities, such a transaction was treated as void only for the purposes of the Regulation, and not otherwise---It continued to remain valid and effective between the parties inter se---In the present case the Land Reforms Authorities declared the oral gift mutations invalid in order to ascertain the holding of the declarants i.e. petitioners Nos.1 and 2 an ddid not declare the gift void inter-se the parties---Gifts made by petitioners Nos.1 and 2 were valid and effective, except for the purpose of the MLR-115---Moreover, once the excess land of declarant resumed under the law, it was for all intents and purposes was a matter covered by the rule of past and closed transaction, which could not be reopened/annulled---The Chief Land Commissioner had already declared the mutations as void before the promulgation of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 and revision petitions of the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 were pending before the Chairman Federal Land Commission, therefore, the abatement of pending proceedings under section 25 thereof were not helpful for the petitioners as their mutations had already been reviewed---Constitutional petition were devoid of merit and were dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Aslam and 5 others v. Haji Khuda Dad Khan through L.Rs. and 7 others 2008 SCMR 886; Qazalbash Waqf and others v. Chief Land Commissioner and others PLD 1990 SC 99; Muhammad Safdar and others v. Punjab Land Commission through Secretary and others 2012 SCMR 1725; Federal Land Commission through Chairman v. Rais Habib Ahmed and others PLD 2011 SC 842 and Federal Land Commission through its Senior Member, Islamabad v. Sher Muhammad and others PLD 1990 Sc 626 rel.
Zakaullah and 2 others v. Member, Federal Land Commission and 3 others 1984 CLC 283; Mst. Raj Bibi and 4 others v. Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab Lahore and 3 others PLD 1975 Lah. 408; Azra Parveen and 2 others v. Additional Deputy Commissioner (General)/Deputy Land Commissioner Multan and another 2000 CLC 654; Iqbal Hussain Quresi and another v. Federal Land Commission, Islamabad through Chairman and 11 others 2002 YLR 1669 and Syed Mohsin Naqvi and others v. Federal Land Commission and others 2010 YLR 3248 ref. Syed Moazzam Ali Shah, Rana Aziz Ahmad, Barrister Amna Hassan and Ms.Fatima Kalsoom for Petitioners. Sameer Ijaz for Legal heirs of Petitioner No. 3. Anwaar Hussain Assistant Advocate General of Punjab with Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Advocate for FLC for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th September, 2025. Judgment Ahmad Nadeem Arshad, J .--- Through this single judgment we intend to decide the above titled Constitutional Petition as well as the Constitutional Petitions bearing Writ Petition No.4486 of 1981 and Writ Petition No.4487 of 1981, as having similar questions of facts and law are involved in all the petitions. 2. The petitioners in all the petitions have challenged the following orders: 1. The orders dated 30.09.1972/07.10.1972 passed by the Land Commissioner (Respondent No. 3), whereby Mutation No. 147, dated 28.11.1970, was declared void, and Mutation No. 105, dated 29.08.1970, was declared partially void and partially valid. 2. The order dated 09.06.1973 passed by the Land Commissioner (Respondent No.3), through which the appeals of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were dismissed with some modifications. 3. The order dated 20.02.1975 passed by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner (Respondent No. 2), which dismissed the appeals of petitioners Nos.1 and 2, declaring Mutations Nos.105 and 147 as entirely void. 4. The order dated 17.02.1980 passed by the Federal Land Commission (Respondent No. 1), dismissing the revision petitions of Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. 3. Relevant facts forming background of the proceedings in hand are that petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, Muhammad Sardar Khan and Muhammad Akram Khan, are the declarants under Martial Law Regulation 115 (MRL-115). They transferred a total land measuring 4636 kanals in equal shares (2318 kanals + 2318 kanals ) to their brothers, Ghulam Mahar Ali Khan and Muhammad Usman Khan (Petitioners Nos. 3 and 4), sons of Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Khan, through oral gift via Mutation No. 147, dated 28.11.1970. They also gifted land measuring 1469 kanals 12 marlas to their sister, Farrah Iqbal (Petitioner No. 5), through oral gift via Mutation No. 105, dated 29.08.1970. The petitioners submitted their declaration forms excluding the gifted land. Following this, the Deputy Land Commissioner, based on the submitted forms, issued two separate orders dated 09.01.1973, resuming an excess area of 1853 Produce Index Units from Petitioners Nos.1 and 1853 Produce Index Units from Petitioner No.2 (Land in excess of the ceiling 14000 PIUs under Para No.8 of MLR-115). The Land Commissioner (Respondent No. 3) vide order dated 14.06.1972 declared Mutations Nos. 105 and 147 void. However, the matter was remanded for a fresh decision. After the remand, the Land Commissioner, exercising the power of review, declared that Oral Gift Mutation No. 147, dated 28.11.1970, executed by Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in favor of their brothers (Petitioners Nos. 3 and 4), did not attract the provisions of either Exception I or II of the 2nd Proviso to Paragraph 7 (I)(b) of the Land Reforms (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance No. XV of 1972, and consequently, declared it void. Regarding Mutation No.105, executed by petitioners Nos.1 and 2 in favour of their sister (Petitioner No.5) on 29.08.1970, the Land Commissioner held it to be valid for 85 kanals 05 marlas , but void for the excess land of 649 kanals and 11 marlas , which was over and above her entitlement. Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 challenged this order by filing separate appeals before the Land Commissioner. In his order dated 09.06.1973, the Land Commissioner upheld the order declaring Oral Gift Mutation No. 147 as void but modified the decision regarding said Mutation No. 105. He declared the mutation valid for 155 kanals 01 marla and void for the excess land of 579 kanals 15 marlas . Dissatisfied with this, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 filed separate appeals (R.O.A. No. 428 of 1972-73 and R.O.A. No. 437 of 1972-73) before the Chief Land Commissioner. The Additional Chief Land Commissioner (Respondent No. 2), by order dated 20.02.1975, declared both mutations (No. 105 and No. 147) void in their entirety. With regard to Mutation No. 105, the order included the following observations: Admittedly in this case the father of the donor and donee is alive. In his life-time there cannot be any question for her to receive any inheritance and therefore when she received this gift of land she had not been deprived of her due share of inheritance. This transaction of gift was thus in clear violation of the provisions of Para 7 of MLR 115. This transaction is void in its entirely. The order of the Land Commissioner declaring it as partially void and partially valid is not in accordance with the provision of MLR 115, is set-aside. That with regard to mutation No.147 declared as under:- In mutation No.147 the two appellants-declarants gifted land to their younger brothers. In this connection it was argued that the father after gifting his land to his two sons who are appellants in these case had no land left with him to give to his remaining sons and therefore, it was to compensate them that the two appellants gifted land to their younger brothers. This transaction however, involved gift from the two brothers to the two brothers in the life time of their father. Neither the Provision of MLR 115 nor of the Notification issued in this connection permits such gift of land. The Notification permits gift from a brother to a brother only in case the donee brother had been deprived of his due share of inheritance. In the present case the father of the donor and donee being alive, the question of any deprivation of due share of inheritance does not arise. I, therefore, see no merits in the two appeals with regard to mutation No.147 against the order of the Land Commissioner which are dismissed. In the light of said order dated 20.02.1975 of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, the Deputy Land Commissioner passed two separate orders of even date i.e. 30.04.1975 with regard to further resumption of the land of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 as under:- 1. Petitioner No.1 namely Muhammad Sardar Khan. Case of the declarant was decided by my predecessor vide his order dated 9.7.73 whereunder an area of 302 Acres and 2 kanals equal to 12189 PIUs was resumed provisionally as he was in appeal before the Addl: Chief Land Commissioner, Lahore, in connection with mutations Nos.105 and 147. The Addl. Chief Land Commissioner, Lahore, vide his order dated 20.2.75 has held mutations Nos.105 and 147 as void in their entirety. Consequently an area of 370 Acres, 7 kanals and 16 marlas equal to 12524 PIUs being in excess of the ceiling is hereby provisionally resumed free from all encumbrance, as he has filed an appeal before the Member, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad. He is directed to furnish the choice about the area to be surrendered within 3 days positively failing which suo moto selection of the area shall be made. II. Petitioner No.2 namely Muhammad Akram Khan. Case of the declarant was decided by my predecessor vide his order dated 9.7.1973 whereunder an area of 289 Acres and 6 kanals equal to 9157 PIUs was resumed provisionally as he was in appeal before the Addl: Chief Land Commissioner, Lahore in connection with mutations Nos.105 and 147. The Addl: Chief Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore, vide his order dated 20.2.75 has declared both the mutations as void in their entirety. Consequently an area of 289 Acres and 6 kanals equal to 9157 PIUs, being in excess of the ceiling, is hereby, provisionally resumed free from all encumbrance as he has preferred an appeal before the Member, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad. He is directed to furnish the choice about the area to be surrendered within 3 days positively failing which suo moto selection of the area should be made. Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 20.02.1975 passed by respondent No.2, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 filed two separate regular revision petitions (No. R.P.I. (65-33) FLC/75 and No. R.P.I. (66-32) FLC/75) before the Federal Land Commission (Respondent No. 1). These revision petitions were dismissed through an order dated 17.02.1980, in the following manner: The impugned order of learned ACLC held certain gift by the petitioners - declarants in favour of their brothers and sister to be void. The plea of the petitioners was rejected by the learned ACLC. That pleas was that brothers and sister can be gifted land under certain circumstances, if the gifted land was from inherited property and the donee had not received due shares of ancestral land. This plea of the petitioners rejected by the learned ACLC on the main ground that the father of the donee was alive until after the gift. There was, therefore, no question of the donee not having received their due share of inheritance, which under the Muhammadan Law commences after the death of the person from whom inheritance is to take place. The reasoning adopted by the learned ACLC was correct and sound and on behalf of the petitioners no good ground has been shown such as would call for intervention by this Tribunal. The petitions are accordingly rejected. The petitioners assailed said orders of respondents Nos.1 to 3 through filing above referred Constitution Petitions. 4. The learned Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said Constitution petitions while declaring that in view of declaration of law in "Qazalbash Waqf Case the pending proceedings before the Land Reforms Authorities are deemed to have been abated in respect of these three cases and held as under:- 2. It appears from the record that Muhammad Sardar Khan and Muhammad Akram Khan were owners of agricultural land in excess of the permissible limits under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The dispute as between them and the Land Reforms Authorities went through various stages. However, the record shows that the land in excess of entitlement of the petitioners, was not finally resumed nor transferred to anyone. In these circumstances it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of declaration of law in the case of Qazalbash Waqf and others v. Chief Land Commissioner Lahore and others (PLD 1990 SC 99) no further proceedings can be taken for resumption of land or its transfer to anyone. 3. In the aforesaid judgment it was held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that the Provisions of the Land Reform Regulations, 1972 were repugnant to Islam. This judgment was to be taken effect from 23.03.1990. In this view of the matter, the proceedings pending before the Land Reforms Authority are deemed to have been abated in respect of these three cases. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. The respondents challenged the said order through Civil Appeals Nos. 1108 to 1110 of 2007 before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. The apex Court, while setting aside the impugned judgment, remanded the matter to this Court with a direction to decide the case afresh on merits, in accordance with the law, as per the following terms: 8. To cut a long story short we find that there can be no two views as regard the judgment under challenge before us that it lacks the basic requirement of a judicial order, as it has been passed in a slipshod and causal manner. One fails to understand as to how the proceedings which had taken place before the Land Reforms Authorities prior to the cutoff date i.e. 23.03.1990 given in the case of Qazalbash Waqf (Supra), will abate automatically, when the said judgment has itself protected such actions in Paragraph 7 of the order of the Court in the concluding part of the judgment, which reads as under:- 7.The operation of the self-executory provisions of the Regulation and the Act, and the provisions ancillary thereto shall not in any manner be affected by this decision till the aforesaid provisions cease to have effect i.e. on 23.03.1990. 9. This being the position, without going into the further details of the matter, which may result in causing prejudice to the interest of some of the parties, we deemed it appropriate to set-aside the impugned judgment and disposed of these three appeals in terms of the short order, which reads as under:- We have heard the learned ASCs for the parties. For reasons to be recorded later, these appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court, where Writ Petition Nos.373/1981, 4486/1981 and 4487/ 1981 shall be deemed to be pending and shall be decided afresh on merits in accordance with the law. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at full length and gone through the record as well as the case laws referred by the parties, with their able assistance. 7. It is evident from the record that petitioners Nos.1 and 2, namely Muhammad Sardar Khan and Muhammad Akram Khan, were the original owners who transferred land measuring 4636 kanals to their brothers, namely Ghulam Mahar Ali and Muhammad Usman Khan (petitioners No.3 and 4), through oral gift mutation No.147 dated 28.11.1970. Similarly, they transferred land measuring 1469 kanals and 12 marlas to their sister, Farrah Iqbal (petitioner No.5), through oral gift Mutation No.105 dated 29.08.1970. Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 submitted a Declaration Form before the concerned Deputy Land Commissioner, who accepted the same and excluded the land mentioned in the above-referred oral gift mutations. However, the Land Commissioner, upon scrutiny of the Declaration Forms, reversed the order of the Deputy Land Commissioner by declaring mutation No.147 as void, and Mutation No.105 as partly void. Subsequently, on the appeals filed by petitioners Nos.1 and 2, the Land Commissioner upheld the findings with respect to mutation No.147 but modified the findings regarding mutation No.105. Petitioners Nos.1 and 2, feeling aggrieved, filed separate appeals before the Land Commissioner, who maintained the findings concerning mutation No.147 and held that mutation No.105 was also entirely void. Being dissatisfied, petitioners Nos.1 and 2 approached respondent No.1 by way of separate revision petitions, which were dismissed through order dated 17.02.1980. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners advanced arguments on two grounds. Firstly, it was contended that the impugned orders are contrary to law, without jurisdiction, and liable to be set aside on the ground that Explanation II to Paragraph 7(b) of MLR-115 and Notification No.ASR-27/74/449-LC(II) dated 23.01.1974 are clearly applicable to the facts of the case. It was argued that the oral gift mutations are protected under the aforementioned legal provisions. The petitioners further asserted that their father had gifted the entire ancestral property to petitioners Nos.1 and 2, thereby diverting the course of inheritance and depriving petitioners Nos.3, 4, and 5 of their rightful shares. Consequently, petitioners Nos.1 and 2 made the oral gifts to Petitioners Nos.3, 4, and 5 in good faith, to grant them their due share in the ancestral property. Secondly, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court, whereby, Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 18 of MLR-115 were declared to be repugnant to the injunctions of Islam, argued that the respondents has no authority to resume the land in dispute after the cut-off date of 23.03.1990, and any proceedings pending before the Land Reforms Authorities are deemed to have been abated. Now we discussed said grounds separately. 9. It is a matter of record that the grandfather of the petitioners, namely Sardar Muhammad Usman Khan transferred the land measuring 9272 kanals through Mutation No.6 dated 07.04.1956 to his three wives namely Khair-un-Nisa, Noor Begum, and Noor Bhari to the extent of 1159 kanals ; to his son Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Khan to the extent of 3,245 kanals
and 2 marlas ; and to his daughters Karam Ilahi, Sardar Begum, and Nawab Begum to the extent of 4,867 kanals and 16 marlas . These seven persons subsequently transferred 4636 kanals land to petitioner No.1 and 4,636 kanals to petitioner No.2 through mutation No.7 dated 07.04.1956. Similarly Sardar Muhammad Usman Khan who was also owner of land measuring 1124 kanals 18 marlas in Khata No.15 transferred said land to above named seven persons through oral tamleek mutation No.14 dated 07.04.1956. Said seven persons gifted said land to petitioners Nos.1 and 2 through oral gift mutation No.15 dated 11.04.1964. 10. Petitioners Nos.1 and 2, out of the transferred land gifted 1469 kanals and 12 marlas and 4636 kanals to their sister and brothers through oral gift Mutations Nos.105 and 147, respectively. At the time of said gift mutations, Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Khan father of the petitioners (Donors and Donees) was alive who has survived by one wife, four sons and three daughters. The petitioners claimed that these gifts were made in good faith, as petitioners Nos.3, 4, and 5 had not received their due shares in the ancestral property, since their father, Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Khan, did not leave any land to be inherited by them. Accordingly, petitioners Nos.1 and 2 sought protection of the oral gift Mutations Nos.105 and 147 under Explanation II to Paragraph 7(b) of MLR-115 and the Notification dated 23.01.1974. 11. In the context of the above, it is appropriate, first to see the Para No.7 of MLR-115 and Notification dated 23.01.1974 which reads as under:- 7. Certain transfers void. (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Regulation- (a) the transfer of any land, and the creation of any right or interest in or encumbrance on any land, made in any manner whatsoever in respect of any area, on or after the 20th day of December 1971, by any person holding immediately before that date an area of more than one hundred and fifty acres of irrigated land or three hundred acres of unirrigated land or an area equivalent to twelve thousand produce index units (calculated on the basis of classification of soil as entered in the Revenue Records, for Kharif 1969 and Rabi 1969-1970), whichever shall be greater, shall be and shall be deemed always to have been void, and the land so transferred or encumbered shall be deemed to have been owned or possessed, as the case may be, by the person by whom it was owned or possessed immediately before that date: Provided that in the case of a person to whom, the provisions of subparagraph (2) of paragraph 8 apply, no such transfer or creation of any right or interest or encumbrance shall be void unless he was holding on the said date an area more than fourteen thousand produce index units; (b) save in cases where the Commission is satisfied that it was a bona fide transaction, the transfer of any land and the creation of any right or interest in or encumbrance on any land, made in any manner whatsoever, by any person holding at any time during the period from the first day of March, 1967, to the nineteenth day of December, 1971 (both days inclusive) an area equivalent to more than twelve thousand produce index units (calculated on the basis of classification of soil as entered in the Revenue Records for Kharif 1966 and Rabi 1966 67), shall be and shall be deemed always to have been void, and the land so transferred or the land on which the right, interest or encumbrance was so created shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, owned or possessed, immediately before that date: Provided that any transfer of land or creation of any right or interest in or encumbrance on any land by way of gift by a person to whom this clause applies shall, subject to the next succeeding proviso, in no case be held by the Commission to be a bona fide transaction: Provided further that nothing in this clause shall apply to (i) any transfer of land or creation of any right or interest in or encumbrance on any land, by way of gift or otherwise, made by a person in favour of his…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.