FCC Upholds Final Land Resumption, Keeps 213-PIU Claim Open in Mazhar Riaz Case

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

The Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan has refused Mazhar Riaz leave to reopen the concluded resumption of 544 PIUs of land and the subsequent lawful allotments. It nevertheless preserved his opportunity to pursue a separate question: whether an additional 213 PIUs had been resumed in excess. That question remains for the Deputy Land Commissioner, Sheikhupura. (Paragraphs 12–16.)

The judgment in Mazhar Riaz v. Member Federal Land Commission & others, CPLA No. 1161-L of 2022, is dated 15 September 2026. Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah authored it on a bench with Justice Rozi Khan Barrech. It is approved for reporting. The official FCC register lists its upload on 19 October 2026.

The two land questions must be kept distinct. Dismissal of the petition did not close the 213-PIU issue, and preservation of that issue did not reopen the final 544-PIU resumption or automatically award land to the petitioner. (Paragraphs 14–16.)

Relevant part of the judgment: the two claims are separate

The following is the relevant extract from paragraph 14, on page 8. This is part of the judgment, not the full judgment:

The issue regarding 213 PIUs is separate from the concluded resumption of 544 PIUs and should not be mixed up with it.

Read or download the full 9-page judgment (PDF). The official FCC judgment PDF is also available.

How the original resumption became final

The Court traced the dispute to the Land Reforms Act, 1977. The original declarant, Ch. Muhammad Afzal, held land in Kasur and Sheikhupura. After failing to submit a declaration by 25 May 1977, he filed one on 10 July 1977 following notice. Scrutiny found 544 PIUs above the applicable ceiling of 8,000 PIUs. (Paragraph 6.)

He chose to surrender the excess from land in Mouza Mahmoonwali, District Sheikhupura. The Deputy Land Commissioner resumed it during his lifetime. The FCC treated that resumption as concluded in accordance with law, rather than a proceeding left unfinished when the declarant died in 1979. (Paragraphs 6–7 and 12.)

Why another 213 PIUs entered the dispute

An inspection subsequently recalculated the excess holding as 757 PIUs. The difference arose because a garden or orchard at Mouza Kot Majhi Khan, Kasur, was assessed at one-and-a-half times the prescribed PIU value. A suo motu revision led to an order dated 2 August 1980 and mutation sanctioned on 6 June 1982. (Paragraph 7.)

The Senior Member of the Federal Land Commission withdrew the revisional notice on 28 August 1990 in light of a notification dated 23 May 1972 concerning assessment of a garden at the rate applicable to its soil. The later proceedings therefore had to address whether 213 PIUs had been resumed in excess. That accounting issue was not a basis for treating the original 544 PIUs as still undecided. (Paragraphs 7 and 14.)

The tenants’ allotments and the remand

Land measuring 94 kanals and 14 marlas from the resumed holding was allotted to Nazir and Bashir on 4 March 2000. Barkat Ali, who claimed to be the senior tenant, challenged that allotment. The appellate authority remanded the matter on 20 November 2001 for reconsideration and allotment under section 15 of the 1977 Act. (Paragraph 8.)

After remand, the Deputy Land Commissioner allotted 51 kanals and 19 marlas to Nazir and Bashir and 28 kanals and 4 marlas to Anwar on 6 May 2015. Appeals were dismissed on 11 February 2017. Muhammad Boota’s application under section 12(2) CPC was dismissed on 8 July 2017. These procedural steps concerned the allotment dispute; they did not erase the earlier resumption. (Paragraph 9.)

The Chief Land Commissioner’s directions already preserved the excess claim

On 24 February 2020, the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, directed the Deputy Land Commissioner to determine whether the 213 PIUs had been resumed in excess. If so, the excess could be returned to the declarant’s legal heirs according to their entitlement or shares. The same order rejected the claim to lawfully resumed and allotted land and preserved the lawful allotments. (Paragraph 10.)

The Federal Land Commission upheld that decision on 17 February 2022. It also directed implementation and delivery of possession of the allotted land to the tenants. The Lahore High Court dismissed WP No. 13915 of 2022 on 8 March 2022 and upheld the authorities’ orders. Mazhar Riaz then sought leave to appeal. (Paragraphs 10–11.)

What the petitioner argued and what the Court decided

Counsel disputed the garden’s PIU calculation, argued that resumption should have been proportionate among heirs, and sought restoration of the land. He also relied on later developments affecting land-reform law and on precedents concerning a fresh choice for heirs, including 2008 SCMR 886. These were submissions advanced in support of the petition. (Paragraph 2.)

The FCC did not accept them as grounds to reopen the final resumption. It said the cited cases did not apply to the facts, and found no illegality, jurisdictional defect or irregularity in the challenged judgment and orders warranting interference. The article should therefore not be read as a ruling that later developments automatically revived every concluded land-reform claim. (Paragraphs 14–15.)

The Court also recorded that the petitioner remained in possession of resumed land despite the concurrent findings and finality of the resumption. That observation helped explain why successive proceedings should not indefinitely postpone the effect of settled lawful allotments. (Paragraphs 10 and 12–13.)

Finality prevents the same concluded dispute from continuing indefinitely

Paragraph 13 discusses Muhammad Raqeeb v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 2023 SCMR 992, and the principle that litigation must come to an end. The reproduced authority connects finality with res judicata under section 11 CPC and prevention of repeated proceedings on the same cause.

The authority also recognises that fraud, mistake or lack of jurisdiction, if pleaded and established, can justify reopening. The decision is therefore not an assertion that a final order can never be questioned under any circumstances. Here, the FCC found no demonstrated defect warranting interference with the concluded 544-PIU resumption. (Paragraphs 13 and 15.)

The Court referred as well to its decisions in Fazale Haq College Mardan v. Sanober Khan and Niamat Ali v. Chairman, Federal Land Commission. Those references support the finality discussion in this judgment; the present case must still be understood through its own separate treatment of the 213-PIU question. (Paragraphs 13–14.)

What remains for the Deputy Land Commissioner

The Deputy Land Commissioner must determine the excess-resumption issue. The FCC did not calculate an amount of land to return, decide every heir’s share or direct automatic restoration of all 213 PIUs to Mazhar Riaz personally. The earlier direction was conditional: determine whether excess resumption occurred, and if so address the heirs’ entitlement. (Paragraphs 10 and 14.)

The closing direction protects that pending examination from being prejudged by observations made while dismissing the wider challenge. This is the practical importance of reading the result together with its express qualification. (Paragraph 16.)

Final order: leave refused, separate determination preserved

The following is the relevant extract from paragraph 16, on page 9:

The petition for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. However, the issue pending before the Deputy Land Commissioner, Sheikhupura, regarding the excess area of 213 PIUs, shall be decided without being influenced by any observation made herein.

The lawful resumption of 544 PIUs and subsequent allotments therefore remain intact, while the separate excess-land issue continues before the designated authority. For related material, see the judgment library.

Sources and full judgment

• Full supplied 9-page judgment PDF.
• Official FCC judgment PDF.
• Official FCC judgments register, which lists upload on 19 October 2026.

Case: Mazhar Riaz v. Member Federal Land Commission & others. C.P.L.A. No. 1161-L of 2022. Date: 15 September 2026. Bench: Justice Rozi Khan Barrech and Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah. Author: Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah. Approved for reporting. No reporter or neutral citation is printed in the supplied copy.

Frequently asked questions

Did the FCC order restoration of all the resumed land?

No. It refused leave and left intact the final resumption of 544 PIUs and the subsequent lawful allotments. (Paragraphs 12 and 15–16.)

What happened to the claim about 213 PIUs?

That separate issue remains before the Deputy Land Commissioner, Sheikhupura. The authority must determine whether excess resumption occurred and the resulting entitlement, without being influenced by observations in the FCC judgment. (Paragraphs 14 and 16.)

Are the 213 PIUs automatically returnable to Mazhar Riaz?

No. The earlier direction requires a determination of excess resumption. Any return is conditional on that finding and is to the legal heirs according to their entitlement or shares. (Paragraphs 10 and 14.)

Why did the 544-PIU resumption remain final?

It had been completed during the original declarant’s lifetime in accordance with his own choice, and the land was later lawfully allotted. The FCC found no illegality, jurisdictional defect or irregularity warranting interference. (Paragraphs 6, 12 and 15.)

Does finality exclude every possible challenge to a judgment?

The authority reproduced in paragraph 13 recognises exceptions where fraud, mistake or lack of jurisdiction is pleaded and established. The FCC found no basis to disturb the concluded resumption in this case.

Did the Court accept the argument based on a fresh choice for heirs?

No. Paragraph 14 states that the precedents invoked by the petitioner did not apply to the facts. The Court separated the concluded 544-PIU resumption from the pending 213-PIU question.

What are the date, bench and reporting status?

The judgment is dated 15 September 2026, by Justice Rozi Khan Barrech and Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah. Justice Shah authored it. It is approved for reporting and was listed as uploaded on 19 October 2026.