MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN AND 5 Others vs AHMAD ALI KHAN
This petition arose from a dispute regarding succession to the land allotted to Sarfraz Khan, a deceased right-holder under the Rehabilitation (Land) Settlement Scheme. The petitioners, sons of Muhammad Hassan Khan, claimed exclusive inheritance rights, arguing that succession opened and allotment occurred before paragraph 46 of the Scheme was amended on 4th March 1954 to include sons of predeceased daughters as heirs. The core legal question was whether Ahmad Ali Khan, the respondent and son of the deceased right-holder's predeceased daughter, was entitled to a share in the estate under the amended terms of the Scheme. The Supreme Court found that no mutation of inheritance had been attested prior to the amendment, a civil suit filed by the petitioners claiming exclusive inheritance was dismissed, and the relevant mutation was entered long after 4th March 1954. The Court held that paragraphs 46 and 46-A of the Scheme stood amended before succession was determined, validating the respondent's share. Consequently, the High Court rightly rejected the petitioners' writ petition, and the Supreme Court dismissed the leave petition.
- Does the amended paragraph 46 of the Rehabilitation (Land) Settlement Scheme apply where succession is determined and mutation entered after the amendment date?
- Is the son of a predeceased daughter entitled to inherit from a deceased right-holder under the Rehabilitation (Land) Settlement Scheme after its amendment on 4th March 1954?
- Can a party claim exclusive inheritance of a right-holder's land without an attested mutation or civil court decree in their favour prior to statutory amendments?
- Paragraph 46, Rehabilitation (Land) Settlement Scheme
- Paragraph 46-A, Rehabilitation (Land) Settlement Scheme
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB AL1, J.-It is contended that before paragraph 46 of the Rahabilitation (Land)
2. Settlement Scheme Was amended on the 4th of March 1954, whereby the son of a deceased daughter of a right holder was included in the list of his heirs succession in the case had opened out and the land in dispute had been allotted and confirmed in the name of Muhammad Hassan Khan, father of the petitioners. On this premises it is claimed that Ahmad Ali Khan, respondent, who is son of the predeceased daughter of Sarfraz Khan was not entitled to succeed.
3. The plea raised is without any basis. According to the entries in R. L. II Annexure "A" at page 39 of the printed paper book the land was allotted in the name of Sarfraz Khan and Muhammad Hassan Khan had agreed to the proposal as an heir of the right-holder. No mutation of inharitance of Sarfraa Khan was ever attested in favour of Muhammad Hagan Khan. On the contrary the Suit filed by the petitioners for a declaration that they were the exclusive heirs of Sarfraz Khan deceased was con--tested by the respondent and dismissed by the civil Court. It further appears on the record that mutation No. 202 9n relation to the inheritance of Sarfraz Khan was entered in the revenue papers long after 4th March 1954, and the claim of Ahmad Ali Khan was in accordance with the terms of paragraph 46 of the Rehabilitation (Land) Settlement Scheme accepted by the Settlement authorities.
4. The position which emerges out, therefore, is that paragraphs. 46 and 46-A of the Scheme already stood amended when succession to the estate of Sarfraz Khan the deceased right holder was determined and Ahmad Ali Khan, respondent, being the son of his predeceased daughter bad been given a share in the land verified in his name. In the circumstances no case for interference by the High Court was made out and the writ petition filed by the petitioner was rightly rejected.
5. We dismiss this petition.