1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The dispute relates to the inheritance of Chhaju Khan and Maula Bakhsh sons of Sultan Khan. Chhaju Khan and Maula Bakhsh died during the disturbances of 1947. Chhaju Khan died issueless. His estate devolved upon Maula Bakhsh. The petitioners who are the sons of Maula Bakhsh preferred their claims in their names as the refugees right holders. Their names were entered into by the Patwari as successors-in-interest of Maula Bakhsh. The case came up for decision b1ore the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) when it transpired that the petitioners had another brother Latif Khan. On the 22nd August 1954, Mutations Nos. 67 and 68 were attested in the names of the petitioners and Latif Khan. No objection was taken by the petitioners on this attestation of mutations. Later on, the question of the successor of Latif Khan came up for consideration in Mutation No. 912. On the 7th February 1967, the mutation was sanctioned in favour of respondent Mst. Mohammad Jan to the extent of 1/8th, respondent Mst. Sharifan to the extent of 1/2 and the remaining 3/8th of the property was mutated in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners challenged this order before the Collector, Gujranwala and their appeal was dismissed on the 13th December 1967.
2. The petitioners remained quiet for a long time. On the 30th March 1968, they applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala under section 11 of the Displaced Persons Act and challenged Mutations Nos. 67 and 68 which were sanctioned in 1954. The learned officer, by order dated the 1st December.1969, directed that the order sanctioning the mutations be reviewed and decided afresh.
3. This order was challenged before the Settle--ment Commissioner in revision. The learned Settlement Commissioner accepted the revision and set aside the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The matter was then taken in Writ Petition No. 494/R of 1970 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of High Court of West Pakistan on the 8th May 1970. The matter was further taken in Letters Patent Appeal No. 135 of 1970 before a Division Bench of West Pakistan High Court, Lahore. The learned Judges of the High Court dismissed the appeal on the 29th June 1970. This order is being challenged in this petition for special leave to appeal.
4. In support of the petition, Mr. Gul Mohammad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner,, contended that the inheritance of deceased Maula Bakhsh should have been determined according to the law applicable in India and under that law Mst. Mohammad Jan respondent No. 1 and Mst. Sharifan respondent No. 2 who were the widow and daughter respectively of the deceased were not entitled to succeed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the case of Syed Abdur Rashid v. Pakistan and others (PLD 1962SC42). It was held in that case that the property, if any, left by deceased displaced person being situated in India would devolve according to law prevailing in India and succession thereto could not be regulated by a law made in Pakistan. These observations are of no help to the petitioners because the inheritance is not to be determined in respect of the property left in India. The inheritance is to be determined in respect of the claim of the petitioners in lieu of the property left in India. There are instructions of the Settlement Department. That instructions issued by the Department should be applied only to the cases of inheritance of such refugee right-holders as had died either in India or Pakistan. In Memorandum No. 4953-54/3917-R(L) issued on the 14th of April 1954, the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioners (Lands), under the instructions of Rehabilitation Commissioner has stated as under :--- "The Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands), however, wishes it to be made clear that the said instructions should be applied only to the cases of inheritance of such refugee right-holders as had died either in India or Pakistan before they could file their claims for allotment of land under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. When once a claimant had filed his claim and died thereafter before securing any actual allotment, the normal rule of succession laid down by the Shariat Law should be applied in its entirety without any deviation. The same should be done in subsequent mutations of inheritance of allottees as already laid down in clause 67 of Chapter 1, Part II of the Resettlement Scheme. It should, therefore, be understood that the term `deceased- right---holder' in clause 67 referred to above means a right-holder who had died before putting in his claim."
5. In view of the above instructions, the case of inheritance of Maula Bakhsh who died in India has been rightly determined according to para. 46 of the Settlement Scheme. It was next contended that the order sanctioning Mutations Nos. 67 and 68 in favour of Fazal Mohammad, Mohammad Zafar and Latif Khan was wrong because if the mutation was sanctioned in favour of Latif Khan under whom Mst. Mohammad Jan and Mst. Sharifan claimed, it should have been sanctioned in favour of three other brothers, namely, Mohammad, Ahmad and Irshad, who like Latif Khan died during disturbances. It will be noticed that the Mutations Nos. 67 and 68 were sanctioned on the 22nd August 1954, in the presence of the petitioners. The petitioners consented to the mutations in favour of Mst. Mohammad Jan and Mst. Sharifan respondents and the High Court rightly observed that they cannot be permitted to agitate this question in 1958.
6. Apart from this Maula Bakhsh and Chhaju Khan were shown as owners of the land in Jamabandi received from India. They were refugee right-holders and their succession was to be determined in accordance with the provision of para. 46 of the Rehabilitation Scheme. Mst. Sharifan was entitled as daughter to succession under para. 46(i) and Mst. Mohammad Jail was entitled to inherit as a widow under para. 46(ii) of the Rehabilitation Scheme. Under this Scheme, the other sons of the deceased who had died in India were not entitled to succeed.
7. After careful consideration of the matter, we are satisfied that this is not a fit case for interference in our special jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed.