MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J. --- Writ Petitions Nos. 17695/2001 and 11758/2002, are being decided together as both involve common question of law and facts.
2. Petitioner, Ghulam Fatima, claims that he is the daughter of Mst. Asghari Sarfraz, who died on 13.06.1997; Mst. Asghari Sarfraz, was the owner of two properties i.e. a house comprising of land measuring 15 Marlas, 65 Sq. Ft., situated in Chauburji, Lahore, and property bearing No. F-7/11, 6/A, Islamabad, and therefore, on account of the death of Mst. Asghari Sarfraz, she being her sole heir, has inherited the properties.
In view of the above, a Mutation No. 13227, dated 17.07.2000, was attested in her favour, with regard to the property at Lahore, and for the other property at Islamabad, she had applied to the C.D.A. For the transfer of the same in her name, which has not so far been done. Resultantly, she brought a suit for declaration impleading general public-at-large, as a party, seeking the declaration of ownership as being the legal heir of Mst. Asghari Sarfraz; this suit has been decreed in her favour on 21.07.2001.
3. Subsequently, respondent No. 6, Dr. Asghari Sarfraz, had moved an application to the military authorities, that the petitioner, is an impersonator, and has got the Lahore property transferred in her name; and that the death certificate of Mst. Asghari Sarfraz, is a fake and fabricated document whereas she is the real Asghari Sarfraz and very much- alive. The application was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Kausar, who marked the marked the enquiry to the A.D.C. (G), Kasur; the A.D.C. (G) decided the application, holding that the death entry is forged and he directed for registration of a criminal case against the petitioner and respondent No. 7; this action is challenged in Writ Petition No. 17695/2001. In other Writ Petition No. 11758/2002, the A.D.C. (G), Lahore Cantt., on an application by the respondent No. 6, has reviewed the Mutation No. 13227, dated 17.07.2000, which has been impugned.
4. Petitioner's case is, that the military authorities, had no jurisdiction to entrust the matter, to the Deputy Commissioner, Kasur, and further, that the Deputy Commissioner, Kasur, had no authority, to refer the matter to the A.D.C. (G), for enquiry into the question about the entry of the death certificate. It is also submitted, that the order regarding review of the Mutation No. 13227, dated 17.07.2000, by the concerned authorities, has been passed without hearing the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find, that earlier the petitioner, had got a suit for declaration decreed in her favour, without impleading the specific person as a party, but only arrayed the public-atlarge. In that suit, respondent No. 6, Dr. Asghari Sarfraz, moved an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C., for the setting aside of the decree, besides, respondent No. 6, has also filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, about her ownership of the properties. In any case, the real question for determination is, whether respondent No. 6, Dr. Asghari Sarfraz, is the real wedded were of Muhammad Sarfraz Malik, or Mst. Ghulam Fatima/petitioner, is the legal heir of Mst.
Asghari Sarfraz, who, as alleged by the petitioner, died on 13.06.1997, and she was the mother a the petitioner. This question obviously can only be decided in the matters, pending before the Civil Court. However, the authorities, who had entered and sanctioned the mutation and also registered the death entry of Mst. Asghari Sarfraz, as per their investigation, if found to be result of fraud and misrepresentation, were entitled and possessed with the jurisdiction, to examine and determine the question of fraud etc., even if the application,' has routed to the competent authority, through the military authorities, to ascertain the fact., However, it may be observed, that any such order passed, shall not cause prejudice to the rights of the parties to the properties, which are subject-matter of the application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. Or the suit for declaration, filed by-respondent No. 6.
Thus', in such circumstances, I. Do not find this to be an appropriate case, for interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction.
6. The writ petitioners are dismissed with the above observations. As the matters are lingering on since long, resultantly I direct the learned District Judge, Lahore, to entrust both; the application under Section 12(2), C.P.C., as also the suit for declaration, filed by the respondent No. 6, to one and the same Court, with the further direction, to decide the matters, within a period of six month.