' SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.---The judgment and decree dated 14-4-1996 of the' learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, have been assailed in this revision petition which arises out of the following circumstances.
2. On 22-9-1990, respondents Nos.3 to 10, filed a suit for declaration against the petitioner, the Province of the Punjab and the Colonization Officer (Collector), Sargodha, with the averments that vide letter dated 10-10-1996, land in dispute measuring 12-1/2 Acres was allotted in favour of Mst.
Nazir Begum, the petitioner herein under the Gallantry Awards Scheme, for the act of gallantry of her husband, Noor Hussain, Shaheed, who laid down his life in Indo-Pak conflict on 21-9-1965. Their case was that on 26-11-1970, she remarried and by virtue of the provisions of sections 19-A, 20 and 21 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, she had lost her right to retain the land aforesaid and the plaintiffs-respondents, as the nephews and nieces of Noor Hussain Shaheed, were entitled to the aforesaid land. The order dated 25-2-1989 (Exh.P.6), of the learned Collector directing conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner was also assailed. It may be noted that pursuant to the order dated 25-2-1989, the conveyance deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 13-4-1989.
3. The officials-respondents as well as the petitioner contested the suit by filing separate written statements. The stance of the officials-respondents was that the order of the Collector was perfectly correct and the appeal filed against the said order by the plaintiffs had already been dismissed. It was further stated that according to General Headquarters' letters dated 1-10-1966 and 9-2-1989, the petitioner was entitled to the conveyance deed in her favour.
4. Necessary issues were framed and the suit was tried. The learned trial Court primarily relied on the statement of conditions, governing the dispensation in question, and came to the conclusion that it was not in the nature of a limited estate so as to terminate on the re-marriage of the petitioner. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 17-4-1993.
Respondents Nos.3 to 10, filed an appeal before the learned District Court where a photocopy of the Pay and Allowances Regulations of the Pakistan Army of 1982, Volume-II, were produced which provide for payment of Awards/monetary Allowances/stipends to the legal heirs. A provision from the said regulations was relied upon to hold that on re-marriage a widow lost the right to the allowances. It was further noted that at the time of Shahadat of Noor Hussain, his father was alive who was one of the heirs and he was entitled to the disputed property. The judgment of the Federal Shariat Court in re: The Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969 PLD 1989 F.S. 27, was also relied upon, although it was noted that in the said Regulations there was no specific procedure regarding the said grant. Reference was also made to the application of the father of Noor Hussain Shaheed, addressed to the Army wherein he was advised to get a succession certificate but he did not move in the matter. It was concluded that the grant was for the benefit of the petitioner till her death or re-marriage and on-remarriage, she was entitled to hold 1/4th share. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents was decreed. This was vide judgment and decree dated 14-4-1996, impugned herein.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the dispensation in question was governed by specific statement of conditions and there was no provision whatsoever therein that the grant made thereunder to a widow of a Shaheed, was to subsist till her re-marriage. It has further been contended that against the order dated 25-2-1989 of the Collector, appeal and revision petition filed by respondents Nos.3 to 6, were dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner vide order dated 30-10-1993, the learned Member Board of Revenue vide his order dated 20-8-1995 and the final order passed by the Board of Revenue was not assailed. The letter dated 9-2-1989, of the Adjutant General, GHQ, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, was also relied upon, according to which it was re-affirmed that the petitioner alone being the initial allottee, no one else had a right to claim a share in the said allotment.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents has supported the impugned judgment and decree for the reasons recorded therein.
7. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered. The Regulations for Pay and Allowances of the Pakistan Army, relied upon by the learned Additional District Judge, were not applicable. The, bar contemplated' in the provision relied upon by the learned first appellate Court was with respect to allowances and not a grant under the Gallantry Awards Scheme. Merely because entitlement of the petitioner to the allowances was restricted up to her re-marriage, it could not be said that the grant made to her had also to subsist till he re- marriage. As far as the judgment of the learned Federal Shariat Court in the case of the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance (supra) is concerned, it pertains to the Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance of a public servant which was held to be an heritable estate.
The said judgment was also plainly inapplicable to the controversy raised in the suit. The grant in question was covered by a specific Statement of Conditions which do not have B any such restriction as has been imported by the learned first appellate Court. Perusal of Exh.P.6, the order dated 25-2-1989, of the learned Collector shows that . Order dated 9-2-1989 of the GHQ and the order of allotment in favour of the petitioner were, inter alia, relied upon. The whole case of the plaintiffs-respondents was that they were entitled to the disputed land under sections 19-A, 20 and 21 of the Colonization of Government Lands Punjab Act, 1912, but none of the aforesaid sections was applicable to deprive the petitioner of the grant in question.
8.. For what has been stated above, I have no doubt in my mind that the impugned judgment and decree of the learned first appellate Court are based on wholly irrelevant and inapplicable considerations and, thus, it illegally exercised jurisdiction in upsetting the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of the learned first appellate Court dated 14-4-1996 are set aside and that of the learned trial Court are restored.