KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-This is a petition against an order dated 19-6-1975, whereby a constitutional petition being W. P. 1913/74 filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the High Court.
The facts of the case, for the purpose of the order which we propose to pass are quite few and simple. The dispute in this case is regarding the entitlement to the land allotted to three ladies via.
(i) Mst. Barkatey, (ii) Mst. Mukhtar Bibi, and (iii) Mst. Taj Bibi (petitioners herein) in lieu of the land left by them in India, as mentioned in their respective claim forms. The revenue authorities determined the rights of the parties through three mutations bearing Nos. 36, 38 and 39 in which they treated the title of the ladies as life estate and determined the relevant heirs and inheritance accordingly.
(Learned counsel submitted that there may be one or two more mutations particulars thereof at the moment were not known to him). The contentions of the learned counsel are-
(a) that subject-matter of the mutations should have been attended to or attested by the Rehabilitation and Settlement authorities and not the Revenue Authorities whose relevant orders for that reason were without lawful authority;
(b) on merits be submitted that if the rights of inheritance in the aforesaid lands were to be determined in accordance with the Islamic Law then the shares of the aforesaid three ladies would be more and different from what has been given to them:
(c) in the impugned mutations, it was submitted, no consistency has been maintained qua the determination of their shares; in particular and about the other heirs in general;
(d) the mutations have been sanctioned on the basis that the propositions concerned had left six daughters (or in certain context six sisters) whereas according to the petitioners there were only two daughters (or two sisters).
(e) Even if para. 46 of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Scheme was to be applied to this case the share of his clients would still be more and different from that which has been determined and fixed in these mutations; and
(f) he, however, submitted that his case was that the ladies who held the land in India and later on filed claim forms herein Pakistan were full owners (in India) and could not be treated as holding a life estate both here and in India, with the result that the aforesaid mutations were not decided correctly treating them as life-estate.
2. From what has been stated above is will be evident that the dispute is of a factual nature which might need leading of evidence with regard to' rights of inheritance, determination of the relevant propositus, and hi, consequent heirs and from what point of view can only be properly thrash out by a civil Court, particularly when it is well-settled that a mutation b itself is not intended to settle the entitlement of the parties as laid down by this Court in Mian Ghulam Ahmad v. Muhammad Sarwar and others (1968 SCMR 573) The petitioners, in our view, therefore, have an adequate remedy of filing a civil suit to redress their grievances if any and resort to the writ jurisdiction in the circumstances above mentioned was not justified. Actually in para. 3 of the impugned judgment the High Court also adopted the same view and dismissed the above-mentioned writ petition inter alia on that count. We find nothing wrong with the aforesaid view of the High Court, and without, there--fore, expressing, any opinion on the merits of the entitlement of the respective parties, we think that this is not a fit case for granting leave to appeal.
3. The result is that this petition is dismissed with the observation above made.