Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 814 of 1983, decided on 15th February, 1984.

(From the judgment dated 4th April, 1983, of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 4908 of 1981).

‑‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act (XXV of 1975), Ss. 2 & 3‑‑Agricultura land‑‑Inheritance‑‑Application challenging mutation in respect of disputed land pending at time of enforcement of Act, 1975‑‑Held, could be decided in accordance with provisions of Act‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

S.M.K. Lodhi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Malik Abdul Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court and Walayat Umai Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents No.5 to 7.

Date of hearing: 13th February, 1984.

.‑‑The facts giving rise to this petition are that Mst. Rajan, by an order of the Collector, dated 25‑5‑1968, passed in appeal had been allotted land as full owner against her claim of inheritance from her son who had died in India. She then alienated the land in favour of the petitioners by mutation No. 262 dated 25‑11‑1968 The mutation was challenged by an application moved by the contesting respondents on 28‑9‑1974. The application was rejected on 1‑4‑197 7 and so was the appeal against it on 26‑6‑1978 but in revision the matter was remanded by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) vide his order dated 8‑1‑1980 to the Collector for deciding the matter afresh after giving the parties opportunity of hearing. This decision was upheld by the Board of Revenue, whereupon, the petitioners moved a writ petition before the Lahore High Court. Their case was that the Collector's order dated 25‑5‑1968 whereby Mst. Rajan had been declared full owner, had attained a finality and as such the authorities had no jurisdiction to re‑open the same on the basis of a miscellaneous application. The contention, however, was repelled by the High Court in view of sections 2 and 3 of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act (XXV of 1975). Another contention that the miscel laneous application, having been filed before the enactment of this Act, was premature was also repelled for the reason that the cause of action had matured during the pendency of that application. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

2. The same contentions, as had been raised before the High Court, have been urged before us. But we find no force in the same. The Act XXV of 1975 was effective retrospectively from 15‑3‑1948 and the, Muslim' Personal Law had become applicable to the inheritance in question. The respondents' application which was pending on 31‑3‑1975, when Act XXV had been published, could be decided in accordance with that Act. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

S. Q. Petition 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.