AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J- Through this writ petition order dated 12.2.1995 passed by Assistant Commissioner has been challenged whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against rehabilitation Mutation No.111 dated 17.3.1963 sanctioned by respondent No. 45 Tehsildar Bahawalnagar. As per contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner the dispute relates to the inheritance of evacuee agricultural land allotted against the verified claim of Muhammad Akbar son of Ahmed Khan right holder who had migrated from district Ferozwala in the year 1947 and died on 12.4.1959 before getting allotment against his verified claim. His son Abdul Karim as well as his grandson Hashmit AM died during his lift time. His son Abdul Karim has also died on 25.8.1950 and grandson Hashmat Ali on 3.5.1951. That after the death and before the allotment of land Mutation No.7 was sanctioned on 26.9.1959 in favour of his daughter Maryam Bibi and granddaughter Sfiams Bibi by Tehsildar Bahawalnagar. This mutation was reviewed by Mutation No. 111 which was sanctioned on 17.3.1963 in which the name of his paternal uncle Muhammad Asif Khan son of Fazal Khan also included as legal heirs and share holder in the capacity of collateral residuary. Further contends that a protracted litigation started between the parties which took various rounds from revenue court to the board of revenue and in settlement side also. Lastly, on the claim of the petitioner mutation No. 209 was entered to review Mutation No. 111 in which there were two claims of the petitioner first that there is a; will in favour of the petitioner by Muhammad Akhtar Khan who is his father in law and the second claim she being the widow of Hashmit pre- deceased son of Muhammad Akbar was entitled to get the permissive share of Hashmat Khan as his widow but this mutation was not passed on the ground that petitioner has not followed the proceedings of this mutation. Then another round of litigation started. The matter went up to the august Supreme Court on the point whether in this matter the civil court, revenue court or the rehabilitation authority have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same. Finally this court deciding W.P.No. 994-R-1975 vide order dated 23.6.1976 finds that rehabilitation settlement authority has jurisdiction to decide the same. Against that order Civil Appeal No. 101 of 1977 was dismissed by the august Supreme Court vide order dated 2.4:1980, therefore, the matter was decided by respondent No. 44 which is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The question of determination is very simple but the history of the case is very long. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that so far as the claim of the petitioner with regard to the will in her favour is concerned, she does not press that claim now. The only claim remains that she is entitled to inherit Muhammad Akbar Khan on the basis that she is widow of his pre-deceased son Hashmit. The relationship between the parties are not disputed. The dates of death of Muhammad Akbar and his son are also not disputed. The only question remains whether she is entitled to inherit the permissive share of inheritance of his husband who was the pre-deceased son of Muhammad Akbar propositus. Learned counsel for the respondents states that in first round of litigation the order passed by Assistant Controller was challenged before the Additional Commissioner. He states that in that eventuality the writ petition is not maintainable.
3. I am afraid that objection of the learned counsel for the respondents with regard to the availability of the appeal before the Additional commissioner is not maintainable as after repeal of rehabilitation laws the right of appeal and revision was no more availability, therefore, this constitution petition is maintainable. The claim of the petitioner is under para 46 (ii) of the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act, 1958 which is as follows:- "The widow of a deceased son who died during the lifetime of his father will inherit such share of her husband"
4. When the relationship of the parties is not denied and date of death of Akbar Khan and Hashmi has also not been denied in these circumstances the petitioner is entitled to inherit the premissive share of inheritance from her husband as at the time of death of Akbar Khan it was the prevailing law.
For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed and respondent No.44 is directed to review Mutation No.111 and pass fresh mutation and the petitioner also be given % share from the share of her husband presuming notional presence of her husband, inherit the permissive share of inheritance from her husband.