ABDUL JABBAR KHAN vs THE ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (L), MULTAN AND 2 Other
This petition arises out of a property dispute concerning land allotted to Mst. Ummat-un-Nisa after migration to Pakistan, which was subsequently mutated in favor of the petitioner, Abdul Jabbar Khan, upon her death in 1959. The mutation was challenged by respondents Nos. 2 and 3, who claimed to be the real brothers of the deceased. After various proceedings before revenue and settlement authorities, the Additional Settlement Commissioner held that the respondents were entitled to half the property. The petitioner's writ petition and subsequent Letters Patent Appeal were dismissed by the High Court. The core legal questions involved the jurisdiction of authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act and the factual determination of heirship. The Supreme Court held that the officers passing the impugned orders exercised jurisdiction under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, rendering the petitioner's technical objection untenable, and that the question of heirship being a question of fact could be agitated through a civil suit. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether an order passed by an officer exercising dual jurisdiction under the Punjab Land Revenue Act is without jurisdiction on technical grounds?
- Can a disputed question of fact regarding heirship and being real brothers be challenged through a civil suit?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding inheritance by revenue authorities?
- Section 30, Punjab Land Revenue Act
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J: The dispute between the parties in respect of the property left by Mst.
2. Uinmat-un-Iyisa. This property was gifted to her by the petitioner Abdul Jabbar Khan before contracting second marriage. The gift was effected in Indiabefore partition. On her migration to Pakistan, Mst. Ummat-un-- Nisa was allotted land in Chak No. 19/8-R, Tehsil Khanewal in lieu of land abandoned by her in India. She died in 1959. On the 14th November 1960, the mutation was attested in favour of the petitioner. Siddiq A.I Khan and Manzoor A.I Khan respondents Nos. 2 and 3 challenged this order In appeal before the Collector, Khanewal. The case was remanded for holding further inquiry. The case was again decided in favour of the petitioner by order dated the 6th June 1962. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 again challenged this order in appeal which was rejected.
3. A revision petition was then filed before the Additional. Rehabilitation Commissioner who set aside the order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner anti directed that the appeal of Siddiq A.I Khan and Manzoor A.I Khan should be disposed of on merits after hearing the parties. The Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Khanewal, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the original order of Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner.
4. This order was challenged before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Multan, who by order dated the 10November 1964 - held that Siddiq . A.I Khan respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were the real brothers of deceased Ummat-un-Nisa and they were entitled to get the remaining half in equal shares. The petitioner challenged' this order in `Writ Petition No. 291-R of 1965, which was c1ismissed on the 23rd December 1971. The matter was taken in L. P. A. No. 5 of 1972 which was also dismissed on the 11th January 1972. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.th Sh. Ghias Muhammad, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that by virtue of the amendment made in 1955 in section 30 h of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, the mutation regarding devolu--petition of interest on the demise of Mst. Ummat-un-Nisa, was required to be dealt with by the Revenue authorities who held the petitioner as entitled to the land. The order of the Additional Settlement-Commissioner, which was impugned in the writ petition, was, therefore, without jurisdiction. He further contended that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were not real brothers of Mst.
5. Ummat-.Un-Nisa and the finding on this paint by the Additional Settlement Commissioner is erroneous. Both these points were considered by the High Court.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find no force in the above-mentioned contention. It has been rightly pointed out by the High Court that' both the officers who have passed the impugned orders, namely, Mr. Maqbo6l Ahmad Shah, Additional Settlement Commissioner and Mr. Jamil Haider Shah, Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Khanewyal, were also exercising the jurisdiction under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The objection taken by the petitioner is too technical and was rejected by the High Court.
7. The question whether Siddiq A.I Khan and Manzoor. A.I Khan were the real brothers of the deceased is also a question of fact. In case, the petitioner is dissatisfied with the finding of the Revenue authorities on this point, he can challenge .It in civil suit. It is open to him to file a civil suit for this purpose. There is no force in the petition which is dismissed.