As dispute relates to the inheritance of the same person in both these cases, I propose to dispose of Writ Petition Nos. 642 of 1979 and 1434-R of 1975, by this judgment.
2. Facts, as alleged in Writ Petition No. 642/79 in brief, are that Mst. Afifa Khatoon succeeded to the estate of her husband Muhammad Umer Khan, last owner in the case, as a customary owner in India. In the wake of Independence Mst. Afifa Khatoon migrated to Pakistan and on the promulgation of. The relevant laws, she filed claim for the property abandoned by her. On the verification of claim, she was allotted land in village Suleman, Tahsil Chiniot, District Jhang. Vide Mutation No. 571 sanctioned on 29- 3-66, she gifted away 1833 kanlas of land in favour of Sarwat Jameel respondent No. 2. Present petitioners aggrieved of the order dated 29-3-66, filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue). Sargodha but the same was dismissed, vide order dated 10-12/66. On further revision before the Board of Revenue, Member (Revenue) vide order dated 26-11-71 remanded the case for afresh decision taking the view that Mst. Afifa Khatoon as limited owner was not com--petent to gift away the entire land and that at best she could made gift of her 1/4tb share.
3. In compliance with the remand order of the Board of Revenue, a fresh Mutation No. 817 was sanctioned on 3-5-72. By this mutation, Mst. Afifa Khatoon was given 1/4th share in' the entire estate as widow of Muhammad Umer Khan, the first three petitioners 1/6th share each i. e. 1/2 of the total estate in equal share as maternal grand sons of Mst. Ahmadi Begum, sister of the deceased and the 4th petitioner remaining 1/4th share. This time respondent No. 2 aggrieved of the order dated 3-5-72 filed an appeal before the Collector, Chiniot, who vide order dated 29-11-72 held that Mst. Afifa Khatoon could make gift only to the extent of 1/4th and the remaining 3/4th to escheat to the State. The present petitioners aggrieved of the order of the Collector dated 29-11-72, filed an appeal and similarly respondent No. 2 also aggrieved of this order a revision petition before the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, who vidn order dated 24-7-73 accepted the appeal filed by the petitioners and reject--ed the revision petition of respondent No. 2. He, however, modified the shares in that 1/4th share given to Mst. Afifa Khatoon as widow of the deceased, 1/2nd to Mst.
Ahmadi Begum deceased as sister of the last owner. This was to be shared by the first three petitioners equally as successors of Mst. Ahmadi Begum and 1/4th , share to Aamar Ahmad Khan as residuary, resident of India. Aamer Ahmad Khan was a resident of India, her share was allowed to go to his sister Saira Begum as a trustee. Respondent No. 2 this time filed a further revision before the Board of Revenue, Punjab, and a learned Member, vide order dated 13-1-79 set aside all the orders i. e. of Assistant Collector (11) dated 3-5-72, of the Collector dated 29-11-72 and of the Commissioner dated 24-7-73. The parties were left to "establish their title in the civil Court". This order of the learned Member is called in question in this Constitutional Petition No.' 642 of 1979.
4. The facts as alleged in Writ Petition No. 1424-R/75 are that Garden Allotment Committee vide letter No. 174-A/12/923 dated 3-5-55 allotted a garden comprised in Khasra No. 199, measuring 39 Kanals, 13 Marlas, in village Heera Singh Wala, to Mst. Afifa Khatoon. This also was in lieu of the limited estate held by her in India. The first three petitioners in W. P. No. 642 of 1979, are also the petitioners in this peti--petition. On the acceptance of revision petition by the Board of Revenue, in 1971, regarding the land in District Jhang, Mutation No. 184 in respect of the garden in dispute was also sanctioned in their favour an 30-8-75. The two petitioners who joined as petitioners on their own application by order of this Court dated 11 4-79 claim to have purchased this garden from the first three petitioners.
5. It is stated that the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Jhang as delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, vide order dated 30-6-71 worked out the entitlement of Mst. Afifa Khatoon, observing Inter alia "a copy of this order be sent to Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, to find out if the allotment secured in Hira Singh Wala, District Lahore has since been cancelled. If otherwise he may kindly initiate proceedings for the cancellation of the same" It seem3 that steps were not taken to implement the order of the Additional Settlement Commis--sioner, Jhang dated 30-6-71 and mutation of inheritance, as noticed above, was sanctioned in favour, inter alia, of the petitioners on 30-8-75. In or about October, 1975, one Karam Elahi a lessee of this garden moved an application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land). Lahore for giving effect to the order dated 30-6-71. On this, the said officer vide order dated 28-10-75 cancelled the allotment, admittedly, without hearing the petitioners. The order reads thus:- The petitioners having learnt of this order moved an application under Order IX, rule 13 read with section 151, C. P. C., on 11-I 1-1975 for setting aside the same on a number of grounds, inter alia, that the same has been passed without notice to them. It was also averred that even if any allotment' in excess of the entitlement of Mst. Afifa Khatoon had been obtained, the petitioners were entitled to chose 'before the same was withdrawn. The application, however, was rejected vide order of the Assistant Commissioner (Sadar), Lahore dated 24-11-75 on the sole ground "the decision having beets incorporated in the revenue record, the chapter on this side is closed." The orders of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) dated 24-11-75 and 28-10-75 are called in question in Constitutional Petition No. 1434-R/75.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the various orders, with their assistance. In view of the order I propose to pass, it may be stated at the outset, I need not touch the merits of the case. Suffice it to say that the statement of facts made above is based on the averments made in the petitions and it is made clear that it would be without prejudice to the parties' case in further proceedings. .
7. Taking up Writ Petition No. 642/79 again, I feel, the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside on the short ground that be could not direct the parties to go to the civil Court without himself passing some order so as that the revenue record was kept uptodate. Under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 (vide sections 42, 45), it is the duty of the Revenue Officer to keep the record uptodate by incorporating in it all the changes brought about by transfer or by inheritance. The same duty was imposed upon the Revenue Officer by the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The life interest of the widows stood, terminated by various statutes and, in any case, on the death of Mst. Afifa Khatoon. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the revenue officers to attest mutations of inheritance. The mere fact that the ques--petition of title was involved would not absolve them of this legal responsi--bility. In case of disputed acquisition of interest, he is bound to make enquiries into such acquisition in the manner provided in subsections (6) to (11) to section 42. Section 45 provides "for the variation in the existing entries in accordance with facts proved or admitted to have occurred" this evidently includes the decision on questions of title. It is only in case where some question of law may be intricate or difficult to decide that the Revenue Officer can direct the parties to go to the civil Court, but in that case, also, it cannot refuse to give effect to its own decision. The fact that the decision of the Revenue Authorities is subject to the decision of the civil Court, is no reason to shirk one's duty of arriving at some decision with the object of keeping the revenue record In line with the changing circumstances. In the view taken, I am supported by the decision of this Court reported as Hakeem Mahboob A.I Khan and another v.
Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala and 70 others P L,D 1977 Lah. 1354. The order of the learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, dated 13-1-75 is, therefore, declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The result is that the revision petition filed by respondent Sarwat Jameel becomes pending before him. The case is remanded to him for decision afresh in the light of the above observations. In the circum--stances there will be no order as to costs.