REHMAT BIBI and others vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE and others
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the orders of revenue authorities permitting the review of inheritance mutations pursuant to a previous judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.294 of 1980. The core legal question concerned whether subsequent changes in the status, possession, and consolidation of the disputed land could obstruct the implementation of a final judicial decree determining inheritance shares under Muslim Law. The Supreme Court held that the contentions regarding changes in land status and subsequent alienations could be validly raised before the executing revenue authorities, and dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that subsequent factual developments or transfers do not frustrate the implementation of a final judgment regarding inheritance, and grievances arising from the execution and review of mutations must be agitated before the designated revenue forums.
- Whether subsequent changes in the status and consolidation of land can block the implementation of a final Supreme Court judgment regarding inheritance mutations?
- Can grievances regarding the review of mutations pursuant to a judicial decree be raised before the revenue authorities?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted against an order upholding the review of inheritance mutations by revenue authorities?
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---One Allah Ditta owned 643 Kanals and 14 Marlas of land situated in Village Hardosaharan of District Gujranwala. He died issueless and his entire estate was mutated in favour of his sister Mst. Taleh Bibi who in turn gifted the same to her petitioner daughter namely Mst. Rehmat Bibi. The private respondents before us questioned the said mutations of inheritance in favour of Mst. Taleh Bibi on the ground that they being the collaterals of Allah Ditta, were also entitled to the said land. The suit, the appeals and revision filed by the said respondents failed but they ultimately succeeded before this Court through Civil Appeal No.294 of 1980 wherein it was held by this Court on 2-2-1991 that the entire estate of Allah Ditta deceased being inherited by his sister was not valid; that the present respondents were to inherit 1/4th share of the land as residuaries after Allah Ditta's widow getting 1/4th share and his sister (Mst. Taleh Bibi) 1/2. The leaned counsel for the petitioner then appearing before this Court had agreed to this distribution of the shares. This Court then directed the concerned Revenue Authorities to make fresh mutations in the record of rights accordingly keeping the normal rules of Muslim Law, in mind.
2. Towards the compliance of the said judgment/direction of this Court, the concerned Revenue Authorities applied to the Collector of the District for permission to review the mutations which permission was accordingly granted on 14-11-1991. The petitioners before us, challenged the said order of the Collector in revision which petition was dismissed by the Commissioner on 9-3-1997 and similar was the fate of the second revision filed before the Board of Revenue. The petitioners then approached the Lahore High Court through Writ Petition No.24994 of 2000 which was also dismissed through an order, ,dated 7-12-2001. Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners gave us a long history of how the land in question had changed different hands ever since its inheritance by Mst. Taleh Bibi and how the area and the status of the said land had undergone changes even because of the consolidation proceedings.
These are the same submissions which were made before the learned High Court and on the basis of which the petitioners had desired to block the review of the inheritance mutations in question recorded in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners namely Mst. Taleh Bibi and the consequent implementation of the above mentioned judgment and directions of this Court passed in Civil Appeal No.294 of 1980.
4. The learned Single Judge in the High Court had taken notice of all these submissions and the developments vis-a-vis the land in question and had concluded that all these submissions could be validly made before the Revenue Authorities entrusted with the obligation of reviewing the mutations in question and if the petitioners or any one else was aggrieved of any decision by the said authorities then the petitioners could have fora available to them to seek redress of their grievance, if any. To the same effect was the view of this Court which is reproduced by the learned High Court in para.3 of the impugned judgment which view was expressed by this Court in pursuance of a contempt application moved in the matter.
5. Having heard the learned counsel, we find that the view expressed by the High Court was not open to any exception. This petition is therefore dismissed. Leave refused.