1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This appeal by special leave to appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 21-12-1976 passed in Writ Petition No. 994-R of 1975, setting aside the order of the Member Board of Revenue (respondent No. 5 herein) directing the parties to go to the Civil Courts for the redress of their grievance.
2. The dispute between the parties is in respect of the property left by Muhammad Akbar deceased, a right-holder, who died on 12-4-1959. The said Muhammad Akbar had filed a claim in respect of agricultural land abandoned by him in India. The claim after verification was sent to Sumundari (Distt. Lyallpur) in the first instance. As the land was not available for allotment, therefore, the deceased right-holder had to get his claim transferred to a non-congested district. As such, his claim was transferred from District Lyallpur to Districts Bahawalnagar and Jhang. The claim which was transferred to District Bahawalnagar was sent for allotment to village Fazal Hussain Khan Wala of Tehsil Bahawalnagar. The deceased right-holder was still making efforts to obtain allotment of lands under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme in lieu of his verified claim when he died on 12-4-1959. A Mutation of his inheritance was, accordingly, to be sanctioned but since he had not yet been allotted any land against his entitlement and the P. I. Units had only been calculated. The Rehabilitation authorities proceeded to sanction mutation of his inheritance under the Rehabilitation Scheme. Accordingly, Mutation No. 7 was sanctioned on 26-9-1959 whereby the property was mutated in the name of Maryam Bibi, Appellant No. 1 (daughter of Muhammad Akbar deceased) and Shamas Bibi, Appellant No. 2 (daughter of Abdul Karim pre-deceased son of Muhammad Akbar) in equal shares, by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner.
3. This mutation was subsequently reviwed on 17-3-1963 by the Assistant Collector (Assistant Settlement Commissioner), whereby Muhammad Suleman (brother of the deceased and Abdul Haq (now deceased and represented by his legal heirs) collateral of Muhammad Akbar deceased were also allowed to get some shares in the inheritance.
4. Mst. Mumtaz Begum widow of Abdul Karim and mother of Shamas Bibi, who claimed that the deceased Muhammad Akbar had executed a will in her, favour whereby she was given half share in the property but concealing this fact, the appellants had secretly got sanctioned the mutations on 26-9-1959 and 17-3-1973 in their favour. She also alleged that she being a parda nashin lady was not aware of these proceedings. Consequently, she filed two different appeals before the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner /Collector, Bahawalnagar and prayed for condonation of delay. During the pendency of the appeals, one of them withdrawn but the other was accepted after condoning the delay. The case was remanded to the Court below to enable the appellants to establish her will by leading secondary evidence. This order was passed on 16-7-1973.
5. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner/Settlement Commissioner, Bahawalpur, but the appeal was dismissed on 19-9-1973.
6. They, then, filed a revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue. The learned Member, Board of Revenue was of the view that the decision of the case rested upon the determination of intricate question of law and facts, namely, whether the extract of the Petition Writer's Register from where the will had been copied could be accepted in law, which could not be resolved through the summary enquiry by the Revenue Court. Accordingly, the orders of the Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur, dated 19-9-1973 and the Collector, Bahawalnagar dated 16-7-1973, were set aside and the aggrieved party was directed to seek its remedy in a civil Court. The respondent Mst. Mumtaz Begum therefore, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court by filing a petition under Article 199 to challenge the orders of the Member, Board of Revenue. It was contended before the learned Judge that the Member, Board of Revenue, had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the revision petition against the order of the Settlement Commissioner because the dispute between the parties was of such a nature which the Settlement authorities alone had the jurisdiction.
7. Reliance was placed on Mst. Sughran and another v. Rehmat Ali (PLD 1965 Lah. 580), wherein it was held that questions of evacuee land and their mutations as well as other incidental questions in respect of the same were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation authorities and no party could be directed to go to the civil Court for determination of such rights which were to be decided under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. Ahmad Din v. Muhammad Shafi and others (PLD 1971 SC 762), was also relied upon, wherein it was also held that questions of inheritance and questions relating to succession of deceased right-holder could be decided under the Rehabili-- tation Settlement Scheme and were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation Authorities and that such questions could not be allowed to be agitated in civil Courts. In view of these pronouncement, the learned Judge held that the dispute which related to the inheritance mutation of Muhammad Akbar deceased could be dealt with only under the Settlement & Rehabili--tation Scheme and not by tae revenue authorities. Consequently, the order of the Member, Board of Revenue directing the parties to go to the civil Court was held not to be warranted by law and to be without lawful authority The writ petition was, accordingly, accepted by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 1-12- 1976.
8. The appellants, therefore, filed a petition for special leave to appeal in this Court (C. P. S. L. A. No. 58/77) and it was contended that the dispute between the parties was in respect of the property allotted in lieu of the claim of the deceased Muhammad Akbar and related to the inheritance of property left by him. It was further contended that after the evacuee property was taken over by the Central Government, the bar under section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, was removed and the Civil and Revenue Courts were entitled to decide and adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties in respect of inheritance of the right-holder. In support of this contention, reliance was placed upon a decision of this Court reported in Ghulam Fatima v, Muhammad Hussain and 5 others (PLD1976SC729).
9. This judgment is authority for the proposition that if the question is with regard to the succession of the estate of a confirmed allottee the same is beyond the purview of the Settlement Scheme and the jurisdiction of the Civil and Revenue Courts is not excluded by section 25 of the said Act. This is apparent from the following observations appearing in the judgment:- "Therefore, the complete absence of provisions in the Settlement Scheme about succession to the estate of a confirmed allottee is prima facie inconsistent with the view that the Settlement authorities alone have the jurisdiction to decide disputes about succession to the estate of a confirmed allottee."
10. At another place, it has been observed as follows:-- "Therefore, the absence of these provisions in the Settlement Scheme does not mean that the Settlement authorities have to decide the question of succession according to the general law but mean that the question of succession to the estate of a confirmed allottce is beyond tile purview of the Settlement Scheme. As it is not a matter which can be determined by or under the said Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil and Revenue Courts is not barred under section 25 of the said Act."
11. In fact, the entire question has been discussed in an earlier judgment re--ported as Muhammad Hassan v. S. Mumtaz Hussain (PLD1965Lah.35), passed by the Lahore High Court by one of us (Anwarul Haq, C. J.--as Judge of the Lahore High Court. It has been explained that rights of allotment held by the deceased before any permanent rights in respect of the land have been confirmed were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation Authorities. The following passage from the said judgment may be reproduced hereunder with advantage:- "The land in respect of which the question of inheritance has arisen in the present case was allotted to the deceased Abdul Aziz under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme framed by the Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan, under section 6(1) of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act 1956. It continued to be held by the deceased under the provisions of that Scheme in spite of the promulgation of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and its acquisition by the Government of West Pakistan under section 4 thereof. It has already been stated that no rights had yet been conferred on the deceased under the provision of the Displaced Persons (Land Settle-- ment) Act, 1958. In other words, tile allotment held by the deceased continued in the nature of a grant under the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956. The view that the allotment is to be regarded as a grant has been consistently expressed in Umar Draz Ali v. Khurshid Ali and others PLD 1960 Lah.
12. 834, Alst. Zainab v. Mst. Raji and others PLD 1960 SC 229. Abdur Rashid v. Pakistan and others PLD 1962 SC 42; M. Jamil Avghar v. Rawalpindi Improvement Trust PLD 1962 Lah. 859 and Mst, Basso v.
13. The Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), West Pakistan, Lahore PLD 1963 SC 347. Such being the case, the question of inheritance to tile rights of allottment held by the deceased was one within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation Authorities, and could not be agitated before the civil Courts."
14. Thus, the basic question to be decided is whether the succession in this case was with regard to a confirmed allotment in Pakistan or related to the right to allotment in lieu of the area abandoned in East Punjab about which the deceased right-holder held a verified claim. This matter is clinched by reference of the copy of the mutation filed before us and reproduced at page 25 of the record. The heading of this document shows that it is a copy from the Register of Mutations of Deceased Right- Holders and the text of the mutation sanctioned also contains a reference to the shares of the heirs and not to the confirmation of any specific land in their favour. Consequently, as the mutation related to setting the interest of the heirs in the land abandoned by the deceased right-holder, the Settlement and Rehabilitation authorities alone had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and not the Revenue and civil Courts.
15. Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate for the appellants, drew our attention to page 42 of the Record in an attempt to show that the deceased Muhammad Akbar, had been allotted confirmed land in Village Fazal Hussain Wala on 2-4-1959. This does not appear to be correct because the undisputed position appears to the that when Muhammad Akbar died on 12-4-1959 though his claim stood verified but no allotment had been secured by him in lieu thereof.
16. In these circumstances, we arc of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Judge in the High Court that the Settlement and Rehabilitation authorities alone had jurisdiction in the matter is correct and no interference 'therewith is called for.
17. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby but as no one has appeared to contest it on behalf of the respondent, there will be no order as to costs.