IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI J.:- Malik Devi Dial, a Hindu by caste, was owner of 872-kanals, 9-marlas of agricultural land in different villages of District Jhang, in addition to his proportionate share in Shamlat Deh of said villages. He was having four sons. One son, namely, Ganda Ram embraced the Religion of Islam and he was known as Abdul Haq. His father having annoyed over such conversion, mutated his entire holding by mutation No.1383 on 05.06.1946 in favour of his remaining three sons to the complete exclusion of Ganda Ram, who became Abdul Haq.
2. Said Abdul Haq by challenging the above mutation, preferred an appeal before the Revenue Assistant, Jhang/Collector, on the plea that, he being the eldest son of his family and coparcener in joint family, could not have been deprived from his share and, thus, his father was not competent to alienate whole of the property, which Malik Devi Dial also got as ancestral one. His plea was accepted, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision vide order dated 09.12.1946.
3. This time, Malik Devi Dial challenged such findings, in appeal, before the Commissioner Multan Division, which was dismissed in default on 17.11.1947. Malik Devi Dial was reported to have died in India, after migration in the year, 1949.
4. Abdul Haq, despite the mutation in favour of his three brothers, managed to get possession of an area of 218-kanals, 2-marlas, in different villages of District Jhang, Chak Janubi and Lak Badhar.
5. According to the petitioners, Abdul Haq remained in possession of land, in question, through his tenants, who had been cultivating the land and after once the property attained the status of an urban property, the property tax was being paid by said Abdul Haq.
6. The property, which was being claimed by Abdul Haq and after his death, by his son Mohammad Latif/predecessor-in-interest of present petitioners, by treating the same as evacuee property and were part of the pool, was transferred to different persons against their verified claims. One of them was respondent No.4-Fazal-ur-Rehman, from whom subsequently, respondent No.3-Mohammad Hanif purchased the land, in question.
7. On the move of Mohammad Latif son of Abdul Haq, the District Collector, Jhang, vide order dated 27.01.1980, nullified the allotment in favour of respondent No.4.
8. Respondent No.3-Mohammad Hanif, this time, challegned the cancellation of allotment before this Court through Writ Petition No.219-R of 1979, and Writ Petition No. 254-R of 1980. Mohammad Latif son of Abdul Haq was respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.254-R of 1980 and he, by filing his written-statement, contested the same; however, he died during its pendency on 15.06.1998. Both the petitions were allowed by this Court on 06.10.2000, and the matter was remanded to respondent No.2/Member Board of Revenue for fresh decision, after hearing the parties in the light of observations made by this Court.
9. In post-remand proceedings, the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Jhang, by means of order dated 21.01.2003, allowed the petition of respondent No.3-Mohammad Hanif, and by setting aside the order of Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 07.01.1980, the allotment in favour of Mohammad Hanif was restored.
10. The LRs of deceased Mohammad Latif son of Abdul Haq have now challenged such decision of respondent No.1 by means of present writ petition.
11. Some admitted facts are that, Abdul Haq, who before his conversion as a Muslim was Ganda Ram? son of Malik Devi Dial, and after his such conversion, Malik Devi Dial transferred his whole of estate in favour of his three remaining Hindu sons and, therefore, at the time of partition and after migration of Hindu owners to India, the property was rightly considered as evacuee property and became a part of the pool and, therefore, against verified claims, allotted to different persons, including Fazal-ur-Rehman/respondent No.4 from whom Mohammad Hanif-respondent No.3 was shown to have purchased the same.
12. On promulgation of Act XIV of 1975 i.e. Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal)
Act, 1975, there is no denial that, after 30th of June, 1974, the evacuee laws lost their any relevance and by virtue of Section 2(2) of the said Act, only the pending cases? before the authorities, were to be taken into consideration.
13. In this matter, application dated 30.09.1978 has been shown to have been moved by Mohammad Latif son of Abdul Haq, for the first time, complaining the allotments of the property, in question, in favour of Fazal-ur-Rehman/respondent No.4 and some others, who according to the applicant, were having no entitlement to get such property. A fact noteworthy is that, in such application, there is no mention as to whether any such request was made prior to such application.
14. The petitioners now claim that, on 23.07.1973, late Abdul Haq moved the Chief Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner (Revenue) for necessary corrections in the revenue record in his favour. Such move on the part of said Abdul Haq has been termed as a forgery and an after- thought episode, which has been managed only in order to bring on record the attempts, shown to have been made by Abdul Haq, prior to the target date fixed in the repeal laws i.e. 30.06.1974, and by giving an impression that, when in 1973, Abdul Haq preferred such application, such request was a "pending case" within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Repeal Law, 1975. Had there been any valid move by the predecessor-in-interest of preset petitioners or Mohammad Latif, it would necessarily have been a mention in the application moved on 30.09.1978 before the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang. Even with reference to application dated 30.09.1978, it has never been shown as to what power the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang, was enjoying to deal with such application.
15. This Court, when on 06.10.2000 allowed Writ Petition No. 254-R of 1980, formulated the following four questions, to be answered by the Notified Officer, who was directed to decide the case afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, including the petitioner:-
(i) Whether the application filed by Abdul Latif falls within the purview of Section 2 of Evacuee Property & Displaced Persons (Repeal) Act, 1975 and the same was a pending case?
(ii) Whether the property in dispute was never declared or treated as an Evacuee Property as claimed by legal heirs of respondent No.2?
(iii) Whether the allotment in favour of the Fazal ur Rehman was genuine and was made against verified claim?
(iv) Whether the persons in possession of the property in dispute at the time of cancellation of allotment were entitled to any relief under Section 3 of the Repealed Act?"
The Notified Officer, thus, by means of a detailed and well-reasoned order dated 21.01.2003, has reached to the conclusion that, the application moved by Abdul Haq was not a matter, to be treated as a "pending case" within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Repealed Act, 1975.
16. The Hon?ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Mst. Badshah Begum and others vs. The Additional Commissioner (R.) Lahore Division and others (2003 SCMR 629) has held that, the Notified Officer under the Repeal Law, 1975, was not competent to reopen the matter finalized under the relevant statute before the repeal of evacuee laws. The case, which was not "pending" before any forum in terms of Section 2(2) of the repeal laws, would not be treated as such under the order of any authority or Court arising in consequence to the proceedings initiated subsequent to the repeal of evacuee laws and, thus, a remand order could not extend any power to the Notified Officer to effect any change in the cases, which had attained finality.
17. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 has rightly pointed out that, in view of the provisions of The Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 (XII of 1957), it was the exclusive jurisdiction of the Custodian to decide as to whether a person/applicant before him, is entitled to have the property, and the question as to whether a property is evacuee or not can only be settled by the Custodian under settlement authority, having the jurisdiction to inquire into the character of the property.
The Custodian was never approached by the petitioner or their predecessor-in-interest in order to have a declaration as to the status of the property. The decision of the Custodian under the relevant law was appealable in view of Section 43 of the Act, 1957. It is also a fact that, the property was confirmed in favour of the claimants on 14.06.1972, and mutations showing such confirmation, are placed on record at pages 48 and 49 of present writ petition. Such confirmation has never been challenged by the present petitioners.
18. Looking from another angle as to what was the competence of Abdul Haq (previously Ganda Ram) to ask for his estate from his Hindu father, after having embraced the Religion of Islam.
Mulla in Mahomedan Law is of the view that, the effect of conversion to Islam was to bring about a complete change as regards the right of inheritance. It was held in case of Nur Ali v. Mala Sulana (PLD 1958 Lahore 431) that, A? convert changes not only his religion, but his personal law also.
Syed Amer Ali in Mahomedan Law (Seventeenth Edition) page-83, has opined that, under the Sunni Law, a Moslem does not inherit from a non-Moslem, nor does a non-Moslem inherit from a Moslem.
19. For what has been discussed above, there seems to be no illegality in the order passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Jhang, on 21.01.2013.
The petition, thus, having no force is dismissed.