' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- This appeal, by leave of the Court, is directed against judgment, dated 27-11-1998, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby Writ Petition No,686 of 1975 of late Mst. Ghulam Fatima and respondents Nos.2 to 4 was allowed. Consequently, the orders dated 20-2-1975, 16-7-1973, 1-3-1975 and 23-7-1974, respectively passed by Board of Revenue, Punjab, District Collector, Additional Commissioner, and Assistant Collector-II, Multan, were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect while upholding the order, dated 24-7-1971, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Multan Division.
2. One Faiz Bakhsh, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 4 and 7, being a Member of Cooperative Farming Society of Chak No,4 Faiz, Tehsil and District Multan, was allotted by the society, the State land in dispute measuring 100 Kanals in the said Chak. The Colony Assistant/Collector, Multan, vide order, dated 24-4-1965, declared him eligible to acquire proprietary rights of the land. He nominated his real son Bashir Ahmed as his successor, who passed away. Thereafter, he nominated the appellant, who was the son of his real brother Noor Muhammad, the respondent No,7. The original allottee Faiz Bakhsh passed away on 20-1-1967. He was survived by a widow late Mst. Ghulam Fatima and three daughters, the respondents Nos.2 to 4.
An inheritance Mutation No,39, dated 24-12-1971 of the land in dispute of Faiz Bakhsh deceased was attested in favour of his legal heirs i,e, his widow late Mst. Ghulam Fatima, his daughters, the respondents Nos.2 to 4 and his brother Noor Muhammad, the respondent No,7. The appeal of the appellant thereagainst was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector on 25-3-1971. The review petition of the respondents Nos.2 to 4 and late Mst. Ghulam Fatima was also rejected on 13- 5-1971. The Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, accepted their revision petition on 24-7-1971 and inheritance Mutation No,39, dated 24-12-1971 in their favour was restored. However, a Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, allowed the revision petition of the appellant vide order, dated 20-2-1975 in the light of the bye-laws of the Cooperative Society. Therefore, the legal heirs of late Faiz Bakhsh i,e, Mst. Ghulam Fatima and respondents Nos.2 to 4 filed Writ Petition No,686 of 1975 which was allowed by a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench vide impugned judgment, dated 27-11-1998.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case was required to be decided on the basis of the nomination of the appellant made by late Faiz Bakhsh in terms of section 27 of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 and the bye-laws of the Society. The provisions of section 19-A of the Colonization of the Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, providing for devolution of tenancy of a deceased tenant in accordance with Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) had no application to the present case as late Faiz Bakhsh was not a tenant of the Government as defined by section 3 of the Act but he was a member of a Cooperative Society. Reference was made to the case of Dr. Muhammad Aslam Sial v. Board of Revenue, Punjab and 2 others 2004 CLC 108 and also to clauses 7, 8, 10, 15 and 45 of the bye-laws of the Society. It was further contended that the appellant was rightly conferred proprietary rights of the land vide title deed dated 2-4-1975 executed and registered by the Collector. The position of a Member of the Society, who was given agricultural land for cultivation, was merely that of a sub-tenant of the Society.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents argued that for all intents and purposes, late Faiz Bakhsh was treated to be a tenant of the Government land . Therefore, inheritance Mutation No,39 was justifiably attested in favour of his legal heirs as per law laid down by this Court in the case of Mst. Amtul Habib and others v. Mst. Musarrat Parveen and others PLD 1974 SC 185, Fazal Shah v. Muhammad Din and others 1990 SCM R 868, Manzoor Ahmad v. Mst.
Salman Bibi and others 1998 SCM R 388 and Mst. Aisha and 23 others v. Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue and 6 others Civil Appeal No,139 of 1987, decided by this Court on 21-11-1990.
5. We have heard the learned counsel at length and have also perused the available record. We find that late Faiz Bakhsh had already been found by the authorities as eligible for grant of proprietary rights when he passed away. Therefore, his interest and rights in the land in dispute stood devolved upon his legal heirs under the Muslim Personal Law of inheritance notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of the cooperative society. The nomination of the appellant by late Faiz Bakhsh would not by itself deprive his legal heirs to inherit the estate of the deceased. The provisions of section 27 of the Cooperative societies Act, 1925 and the bye-laws of the society would not be construed so as to exclude the application of Muslim Personal Law of inheritance. A somewhat similar view was taken in the cases of Mst. Amtul Habib, Fazal.Shah, Manzoor Ahmad and Mst. Aisha and 23 others (supra). Needless to observe that the bye-laws of the Cooperative Society are meant for the purpose of internal management which do not adversely affect the vested right of the third party. Reference may usefully be made to the case of Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. And others v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others AIR 1970 SC 245. In our view the impugned judgment of the High Court is just and fair to which no exception can be taken.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.