A BDUL REHMAN vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court concerning a mutation of inheritance. The core legal question addressed is whether the High Court ought to interfere in its writ jurisdiction with mutation orders of inheritance when a civil suit regarding the same subject-matter is already pending before a Civil Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction, affirming the established practice that revenue mutation orders are subject to the ultimate decision of a civil court of general jurisdiction, which provides an adequate alternative remedy. The key principle laid down is that resort to a civil suit is an adequate alternative remedy in matters of inheritance mutations, and the High Court properly declines constitutional interference during the pendency of such civil proceedings.
- Does a civil suit constitute an adequate alternative remedy against an inheritance mutation order?
- Can the High Court interfere in its writ jurisdiction with mutation orders of inheritance while a civil suit is pending between the parties?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought against the dismissal by the High Court of Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner. It had arisen out of\ mutation of inheritance.
2. ' It is stated by the learned counsel that the subject-matter of the dispute in this case has already been taken to the ',Civil Court and is pending adjudication. The learned Judge in the High Court while dismissing the writ petition observed as follows:-- "The mutations of inheritance even if attested by t e Revenue officials will be subject to the decision of the Civil Court in the suit pending between the parties. I, therefore, find no ground. For interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction at this stage."
3. ' It is well-known established practice of the High Court that it does not interfere with the mutation orders (other than those relating to evacuee property). The practice is salutary and the discretion is A refused on sound principle. Legally also the resort to remedy through civil suit before a Court of general jurisdiction, is an adequate alternative remedy. That being so there is no force in this petition. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.
Cited by 5 cases
- Din Badshah and 5 others vs Balay Khan (Deceased) through L.Rs 2021 MLD 1793
- ROZI KHAN GOJAR and anothers vs Mst. REHMAT BIBI 2004 CLC 466
- THE STATE vs MANSOOR-UR-REHMAN KHAN AFRIDI 2000 PLD Lahore 90
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, LAHORE And 2 Other 1992 PLD Lahore 420
- NAZIR AHMAD Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE 2000 MLD 322