Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD SHABBIR KHAN And Another Versus Mst. ZUBAIDA BIBI And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, regarding the inheritance of land allotted to refugees following the 1947 migration. The core legal question was whether the Member, Board of Revenue, possessed the jurisdiction to review an order after a revision petition had already been dismissed on merits, and following the repeal of the relevant governing law. The Supreme Court held that the Member, Board of Revenue, lacked the jurisdiction or justification to reopen the matter through a review application after the revision petition had been dismissed on merits and the underlying law had been repealed. The Court emphasized that litigation cannot be utilized to pursue personal vendettas or unhealthy emotions against rightful heirs. The petition was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision that the review order was passed without lawful authority and was of no legal effect, thereby protecting the inheritance rights of the respondents.
- Does the Member, Board of Revenue, have the jurisdiction to review an order after a revision petition has been dismissed on merits?
- Can a matter be reopened through a review application after the repeal of the relevant governing law?
- Is an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, in review without lawful authority if a revision petition on the same matter was previously dismissed?
ORDER
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---During the disturbances of 1947, Mst. Hajran Bibi and her two daughters Zubeda Bibi and Hussain Bibi migrated to Pakistan. Mst. Hajran Bibi filed Claim No. 11049 for the land of her husband Muhammad Yousaf. Claim was verified and land measuring 51 Kanals was allotted. A mutation of inheritance No. 6 was sanctioned on 11-5-1953 in favour of the widow and her two daughters. On the death of Mst. Hajran Bibi, Mutation No. 240 was sanctioned on 22-7- 1981 in favour of her daughters, and Abdul Latif and Ghulam Mohyuddin, the two brothers of the deceased's husband. Abdul Latif and Ghulam Mohyuddin challenged the mutations Nos. 6 and 240 in appeal but their appeal was dismissed by the Collector, Gujranwala on 25-6-1983. On the motion of the petitioners for review of the mutations, the Collector allowed review vide order dated 2-9- 1984 but on appeal of the daughters, respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the order was set aside by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 20-7-1985. Ghulam Mohyuddin's son, Muhammad Shabbir Khan filed a revision petition before the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Lahore which was dismissed in limine vide order dated 12-9-1985. He would not rest. He filed a review application. The Member, Board of Revenue directed that the mutation may be reviewed for Sehat, keeping the allotment intact. This is vide order dated 20-1-1987. Mst. Zubeda Bibi and Mst. Hussain Bibi, the daughters of the deceased Mst. Hajran and Muhammad Yousaf, filed a writ petition No. 926 of 1987 which has been allowed by a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court declaring the order passed in review to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. This is vide order dated 6-12-1987. Muhammad Shabbir Khan as petitioner No. 1 and on behalf of Muhammad Yousaf through his General Attorney Muhammad Rafiq, both Muhammad Shabbir Khan and Muhammad Rafiq being sons of Ghulam Mohyuddin, have filed this petition seeking leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20-9-1987.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge erred in law in setting aside the order of the Member, Board of Revenue passed on review on 20-1- 1987.
3.The contention is totally devoid of force as after repeal of the relevant law and a revision petition having been dismissed on merits by the Member, Board of Revenue on 12-9-1985, there was no jurisdiction or justification to reopen the matter on review. The continuous dragging of daughters in litigation smacks of ill-will. Courts cannot be used to give vent to unhealthy emotions. The entire land was 51 Kanals out of which petitioner No.1's own father and uncle have got their share. The ladies are entitled to remain in peace. 4, This petition is totally without merit and is dismissed
Judges on this bench
- Abdul Shakurul Salam771 judgments
- Rustam S. Sidhwa1,121 judgments