NANKI Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE

ORDER

1. JAVID IQBAL, J.- -This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Mst. Manki petitioner and it is according to the office report barred by one day.

2. Briefly the facts are that petitioner's father Rahma died before partition in India. In lieu of the land owned by the deceased right holder the disputed land was allotted to the petitioner and respondents Nos. 5 to 14 on 27th March, 1954 whereby the petitioner got half of the land being daughter of the deceased right holder and the other half was allotted to the aforesaid respondents as reversioners. Against the order, dated 27th March, 1954 passed by the Revenue/ Rehabilitation Authority the petitioner did not file any appeal etc. until the Evacuee Laws stood repealed from 1st July, 1974. However, on 26th April, 1982 she instead filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that she was the only heir of Rahma deceased and that the allotment of share of the suit land in favour of the aforesaid respondents was based on bogus pedigree-table produced by them before the Revenue Authority showing themselves as collaterals of the deceased right holder. The Civil Judge, Narowal dismissed the suit on the ground that since the question of inheritance had been decided by the Rehabilitation Authority, he had no jurisdiction to scrutinize its order and that furthermore in accordance with mutation No. 10, dated 27th March, 1954 as well as Shajra Nasab with a report of Central Record Office it was established that the petitioner was the daughter and the aforesaid respondents were collaterals of the deceased father of the petitioner. The petitioner did not further challenge the judgment and decree, dated 3rd August, 1984 passed by the Civil Judge in appeal or revision, but instead on 18th September, 1985 she challenged by way of an appeal the order, dated 27th March, 1954 before the Collector. The Collector dismissed her appeal on the ground that it was barred by time and involved a question of title which had already been decided by the Civil Court against her. Her revision however, succeeded and the case was remanded by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) to the Assistant Commissioner-/Tehsildar for fresh decision. The remand order was challenged by the contesting respondents by way of a second revision before the Member Board of Revenue who set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner. As a result the petitioner filed writ petition which was heard by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore who dismissed the same.

3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contesting respondents were not the collaterals of the petitioner's father and that they had produced a bogus pedigree-table before the Revenue Authority. It was claimed on her behalf that she was the only heir of the deceased right holder and was as such entitled to the entire disputed land allotted in favour of the deceased right holder. Learned counsel conceded that the Evacuee Laws stood repealed from 1st July, 1974 and the disputed mutation in this case was sanctioned on 27th March, 1954. The petitioner did not proceed against that order before the Revenue Authorities but after 1974 instituted a suit in 1982 for a declaration to the effect that she was the sole heir. The Civil Judge, Narowal dismissed her suit but she did not challenge the judgment and decree passed against her any further in appeal or revision on the civil side. However, the proceedings taken by her before the Revenue Authorities were an exercise in futility as these could not be taken after 1st July, 1974. The result is that the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Narowal became final against her. Since this is the position in our view no case is made out for the grant of leave in this case on merits. The petition is even otherwise barred by time. It is, therefore, dismissed.

4. M. I. /N-36 /S Petition dismissed.