Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 1406 of 1962‑63, decided on 12th October 1964.

Allotment under West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settle ment Scheme confirmed‑Inheritance is to be governed by West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962) and Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887).

Shameem Hussain Qadri and Khawaja Muhammad Afzal for Petitioners.

Muhammad Hussain for Respondents:

This is a second revision filed against an order, dated the 3rd of July 1963, passed by Commissioner, Sargodha, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was rejected.

The facts of the case are that a mutation of inheritance in respect of one Mst. Nathi was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector in favour of the respondents. Babu Khan petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, but it was rejected as time barred. He then went in revision to the Commissioner, but the revision was dismissed. Hence this second revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at great length. He has referred me to paragraph 46 (a) of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme as well as the Displaced Persons Settlement Act, 1958. These deal with allotments and not with mutations. After the allotments had been confirmed, the inheritance is to be governed by Punjabi Land Revenue Act and the Shariat Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred me to P L D 1962 S C 42 ; P L D 1950 Ph. (Rev.) 83 and P L D 1950 Ph. (Rev.) 1020 and P L D 1950 (Rev.) 1011. I am afraid none of these rulings helps the petitioner. They deal with matters entirely different from the present case.

In this case, the question for determination is whether the Collector was justified in rejecting the appeal as time‑barred and the Commissioner in dismissing the revision before him. Before the Collector, the petitioner gave the explanation that he did not know of the mutation till late. This ground was not accepted by the learned Collector, who while exercising the discretion, gave a decision against the petitioner. This he was legally competent to do.

The Learned Commissioner had also to decide whether the order of the Collector was justified and he regarded it as such.

In this second revision too, I do not find any justification for interference. The orders passed by the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner were perfectly justified. The second revision, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby.

K. M. A. Revision dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.