Land Reforms Ordinance , 1977

Determining of holding and resumption of excess land. District in which lands were situated and record pertaining to the proceedings under Land Reforms Laws were maintained Authorities of such district had jurisdiction to proceed under S. 7(5) of Land Reforms Act, 1977. PLJ 2001 Peshawar 187 Where such steps were taken when decision in Qazilbash wagf’s case reported as PLD 1990 SC 99, became effective, proceedings under Land Reforms Laws would continue and taken to the legal conclusion and remained unaffected by the decision in Qazilbash Wagfs case–Decisive steps might be filing of declaration form by declarants or when no such declaration was made, determination by the Authorities under Land Reforms Laws, that a person’s holding was in excess of the limits prescribed by the Land Reforms Laws, or order of resumption of excess land made by the Authorities. PLJ 2001 Peshawar 187 Land situated in Kaghan valley–Issuance of notice under S. 7(5) of Land Reforms Act, 1977–Decision of Supreme Court in Qazilbash Wagf’s case PLD 1990 SC 99–Effect–Petitioners had filed their declaration under West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, in the year 1959 and the land was ordered to be resumed in the same year–Resumption proceedings were suspended when on 5.7.1965 the produce index units were reduced by the Authorities declaring the owners of Kaghan Valley to be unaffected–Such order was set aside by the Commissioner, Federal Land Commission in year 1976 and the old resumption proceedings were revived–Petitioners had made their declaration and order Supreme Court of 1984 (1984 SCMR 669) “decisive steps” had been taken by the petitioners and the Authorities under Land Reforms Laws–Implementation of orders passed by the Authorities as affirmed by Supreme Court only remained to be implemented under “self-executory provisions” of Land Reforms Laws–Proceedings against the petitioners were not affected by the decision in Qazilbash Waqfs case PLD 1990 SC 99–Orders passed by the Authorities for implementation of earlier orders for the resumption of lands owned by the petitioners under the Land Reforms Laws were validly passed–Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. PLJ 2001 Peshawar 187 Deceased land owners’ estate was mutated in favour of his son, where upon respondent ladies filed civil suit which was decreed and their shares in the estate were mutated in their names in according with injunctions of Islam- Petitioners filed declaration forms in terms of Land Reforms Act, 1977, whereupon Land Commission. found that respondent’s land could not be included in the holding of petitioners–Excess land of petitioners was resumed–In subsequent proceeding land owned by respondent ladies was included in the holding of petitioners and excess area was resumed- Petitioner’s revision against resumption of Land was rejected—Land owned by last male owner came to vest in his heirs including petitioners and respondent ladies the moment their father breathed his last—Fact that mutations were entered late or that ladies approached the Court after the date stipulated in Land Reforms dispensation was wholly irrelevant–Impugned order whereby respondent’s land was included in the ownership of petitioners and resumed was not, only illegal but was also without lawful authority–Initial order of Land Commission wherein respondent’s land was not included in the ownership of petitioner would remain intact. PLJ 2000 Lahore 1874 Impugned order of resumption of land passed in revisional jurisdiction by official Respondent Legality–Impugned judgments passed by official respondents being violative of principle of natural justice and being without jurisdiction were set aside. PLJ 2004 Lahore 946 Impugned judgment whereby land in question, gifted to. petitioners, was ordered to be resumed–Validity. Respondent official who passed impugned judgment had no authority to decide revision petition as the same stood abated under Section 25 of Land Reforms Act, 1977. PLJ 2004 Lahore 946
Surplus area declared by land owner–Sale of a portion of land after surrendering excess area by such declarant–Legality–Embargo placed under S. 6(1) of Land Reforms Act, 1977, was not applicable to land which had been retained/left with declarant after surrendering excess area–Declarant could, thus, rightly sell any portion of property which had been retained by her after surrendering excess area, therefore, sale transaction by such declarant was not hit by S. 6 (1) of Land Reforms Act, 1977.PLJ 2003 Peshawar 161
Repugnancy to injunctions of Islam–Decisive step under provisions of Land Reforms Act, 1977 had already been taken before the target date i.e. 23.3.1990, when judgment of Supreme Court was to become effective–Matter in question, being past and closed transaction was not affected by the judgment of Supreme Court (PLD 1990 SC 99). PLJ 2003 Lahore 406
Transaction of sale and gift by declarant. Validity of such transaction assailed on the touchstone of S. 6 of Land Reforms Ordinance 1977–Two transactions one of gift and other of sale made by declarant on 5.1.1977, were void by operation of S. 6 of Land Reforms Ordinance which was enforced with effect from 5.1.1977. PLJ 2003 SC 676 Competent Authority has to exercise its independent mind and determine question of transaction in accordance with law after hearing affected parties–In present case, such criteria has been fully met–Perusal of order of Chief Land Commissioner would show that officer had applied his mind to facts and circumstances of Court. PLJ 2003 SC 676