AHMAD ALI KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN

1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑ One Sarfraz Khan, who owned considerable lands in Patiala State, died on his way to Pakistan in a refugee camp at Ludhiana. He left behind a son Muhammad Hassan Khan, two widows Mst. Bano Begum and Mst. Zohra Begum, and his pre‑deceased daughter's son Ahmad Ali Khan, the present petitioner.

2. They all carne over to Pakistan, and on the 29th of June, 1952, u. mutation of inheritance, being No. 25, was attested in village Ballewala, District Gujranwala, at the instance of Muhammad Hassan Khan, in his favour alone without the knowledge of the present petitioner. Subsequent Muhammad Hassan Khan. on the 5 th of August, 1952. Obtained an allotment of 799 kanals 5 marlas of land it village Ballewala in the name of Sarfraz Khan (vide Serial No. 137 of R. L. 11 Ballewala). Thereafter, Muhammad Hassan Khan. himself died in 1953 and his heirs got an inheritance mutation No. 50 attested on the 25th of October, 1953 in favour of respondents 1 to 6. Again, the petitioner had no knowledge of this mutation.

3. Subsequently, when the petitioner came to know of the above mutation; he filed an appeal against both the mutations claiming to be an heir under paragraphs 46 and 46‑A of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Scheme. This appeal was rejected on the 29th of January, 1957, on the ground that the corrections introduced on 4‑3‑54 in paragraphs 46 and 46‑A of the above mentioned Scheme did not have retrospective effect.

4. It may be mentioned here that, on an objection being taken before the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner to the effect that one appeal was not maintainable in respect of two separate mutations, the petitioner had volun tarily requested the D. R. C. to treat the appeal as an appeal only against mutation No. 50.

5. In these circumstances, the Rehabilitation Commissioner dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the D. R. C. on the ground that the: petitioner was not , entitled to inherit anything from Mohammad Hassan Khan and the proper course for him was to challenge the mutation No. 25, in respect of the inheritance of Sarfraz Khan.

6. It appears that lands in village Manawala, District Sheikhupura, were also allotted in the name of Sarfraz Khan in 1952 and in respect of these lands mutation No. 202 was attested on 17‑5‑54 in favour of respon dents 1 to 6 to the exclusion of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this mutation and was held to be entitled to succeed to Sarfraz Khan by the Collector. This decision was upheld in revision also The respondent tried to challenge this by a civil suit filed but failed right up to this Court. A subsequent writ petition on the same subject‑matter (No. 1703/65) filed by the said respondents also proved unsuccessful right up to this Court. The net result was that, in respect of the lands allotted in Sheikhupura District, the petitioner was held to be entitled to inherit by all Courts.

7. With this decision in his favour regarding the Sheikhupura lands, the petitioner filed another appeal against mutation No. 25 in respect of the lands in village Ballewala. This appeal was accepted by the Deputy Rehabilitation, Commissioner and the decision was upheld revision by the Rehabilitation Commissioner on the 30th of May, 1962 and it was imple mented by the correction of mutation No. 25 on the 10th of November 1962.

8. The respondents some four years later in 1966 filed Writ Petition No. 1338‑R of 1966 to challenge this decision in the High Court of West Pakistan. This was accepted on the 4th of February, 1974, by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on the ground that Mutation No. 25 attested in 1952 could not be reopened on the basis of the subsequent decision of the superior courts in respect of the Sheikhupura lands, because, the amendments in paragraphs 46 and 46‑A of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme had not even been made at the time when that mutation attained finality in 1952.

9. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal, and it is contended on his behalf that the High Court was wrong in taking the view that the amendment was not retrospective, because, by a subsequent Correction Slip No. 21 R. S. S. issued on the 15th of March, 1960, retrospective effect was expressly given by the use of the following words at the end of para graph 46 :‑--

10. "The provisions of this paragraph shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied to all cases of inheritance of refugee right holders whether decided under this or any other like scheme which had at any time been in force."

11. It seems to us that the High Court was right in the view it took, as has been pointed by this Court in the case of P. G. Bhandari v. The Rehabi litation Authority, Lahore (PLD 1961 SC89). A subsequent change in the law cannot affect past and closed transactions. Even if the rules prescribed in 46‑A of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme applied to the case of a deceased refugee owner (Sarfraz Khan could not be treated as a deceased right‑holder), the petitioner could not have been allowed to re‑agitate this matter after having earlier abandoned his appeal against mutation No. 25. After that abandonment in 1957, he could not maintain another appeal against mutation No. 25 in 1962 because of the change in the law in 1960. The Rehabilitation Authorities were, therefore, clearly wrong in deciding his second appeal against mutation No. 25 on the basis of the change in the law.

12. The petition, in our view, is without any merits and is, accordingly dismissed.

13. Petition dismissed.