' The instant revision petition has been filed under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 challenging an order dated 3-6-2014, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal, whereby order of the C.A./Collector, Sahiwal, dated 17.04.2014 pertaining to allotment of state land allotted to one Balya under Cooperative Farming Shceme, was set aside.
2. Back history of the case is that one Balya (predecessor-in-interest of the parties) was an allottee of 95k-14m state land in 1949-50 under Cooperative Farming Scheme in District Montgomery now situated in Chak # 18B/7-R, Tehsil Chichawatni, District Sahiwal. Upon his death in 1965, his legal heirs, Waryam etc. Applied before the then Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Sahiwal in December, 1993 for inheritance mutation in their favour. Earlier upon the death of Sultan (nominee) on 26.04.1993, an application was also moved by Noor Ahmad etc. Legal heirs of Sultan for inheritance of the impugned land in their favour contending that the said land was allotted to their father, Sultan. Their application was accepted after reports from the field staff and on the recommendations of Tehsildar, Chichawatni, the C.A./ Collector, Sahiwal vide order dated 29.12.1993 accorded permission to enter inheritance mutation under section 19-A of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. Upon the application of present petitioners, Waryam etc. The Colony Assistant/Collector, Sahiwal vide order dated 17-4-1994 held that his predecessor already accorded permission to enter/sanction inheritance mutation in favour of legal heirs of deceased allottee in accordance with the instructions of the Board of Revenue, Punjab but while executing the said order name of Sultan (nominee) has mentioned instead of original allottee, Balya. He accordingly ordered that lot, in question, may be devolved upon all legal heirs of the deceased allottee in accordance with Shariat and under section 19-A of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 through Sehat Indraj. This order was assailed by Qutab Ali etc. Sons of Sultan before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Divison, Sahiwal, who vide impugned order dated 30-6-2014 accepted the same, set aside the order of the C.A/Collector, Sahiwal dated 17.04.1994 and upheld the earlier order of the C.A/Collector, Sahiwal dated 29.12.1993.
Hence this revision petition.
3. Mian Muhammad Siddique Kamiana, Advocate/counsel for the petitioners argued that Balya (predecessor-in-interest of parties) was an allottee of 12-1/2 acres land under Cooperative Farming Scheme. He died in 1965 and in his place, the land, in dispute, was allotted to his nominee, Sultan. He also died in the year 1993. His legal heirs applied for transfer of the impugned land in their favour. Mutation of inheritance was entered in their favour on 18.10.1993. The original altottee was Balya and his inheritance had to be devolved upon his legal heirs but on the contrary, inheritance mutation was entered in favour of legal heirs of Sultan (nominee). Waryam etc., other legal heirs of Balya moved an application before the C.A/Collector, Sahiwal, who ordered for rejection/cancellation Of mutation No.694 with the direction to enter mutation in favour of all legal heirs. Accordingly, mutation No.747 was sanctioned on 26.12.1994. After lapse of 20 years, legal heirs of Sultan challenged the order of C.A/Collector, Sahiwal in appeal. The Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal accepted their appeal and allotted the impugned land to the legal heirs of Sultan. Learned counsel submitted that legal issue is involved in this case whether C.A/Collector was empowered to review the order of his predecessor? Robkar was wrongly issued.
First decision was that mutation should be entered according to Shariat Law, where inadvertently name of allottee was mentioned as Sultan whereas original allottee was Balya. Sultan was just a nominee of the original allottee. In support of his contentions, learned counsel invited attention of the court towards instructions issued by the Board of Revenue, Punjab on 18.11.1984 to settle such issues and placed on record copies of the following citations of the superior Courts:--
(i) PLD 1974 SC 185---Nomination merely confers a right to collect money or to receive the money and it does not operate either as a gift or as a will and therefore, cannot deprive the other heirs of nominator who may be entitled thereto under the law of succession applicable to the deceased;
(ii) KLR 1986 Civil Case 165 (Multan) - It would appear that the parent enactment does not permit the rule of primogeniture to be applied to nominations as provided by bye-law 8(a) of the Cooperative Farming Society Rules, 1927 - Held that when the same had not been amended and the law declared in Karim 's case (PLD 1970 Karachi 613) was in the field since 1961;
(iii) Order of Full Board dated 16.07.2005 passed in Review Petition No. 653/2003 titled "Mst.
Mehmooda Fatima etc. v. The State/Mst. Khan Bibi etc.
(iv) Order dated 16.10.2003 passed in R.O.R. No.2161/2002 titled "Muhammad Nawaz (deceased) through widow v. Ghulam ,Hussain" by Mr. Javaid Aslam, Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab.
4. In response to the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and on query from the court that who is now member of the Cooperative Society, Ch. Muhammad Tanveer Ijaz, Advocate/counsel for the respondents stated that all legal heirs of Sultan are members of the Society whereas counsel for the petitioners submitted a photo copy of page No.43 of Register of Members Cooperative Farming Society of Chak No.18B/7-R, Tehsil Chichawatni, District Sahiwal, wherein at serial No.190, name of Member is mentioned as "Khan Muhammad son of Balya" and in the column of nominee name of Muhammad Hussain son of Khan Muhammad is recorded. At this moment, learned counsel for the respondents sought an adjournment. His request was accorded and the case was adjourned to 23.09,2015, when learned counsel did not turn up and Qutab Ali, respondent appeared in the court and submitted photo copies of the documents like order of District Collector, dated 27.10.1969 on the report of CA/Collector, Sahiwal dated 14.10.1969 refusing proprietary rights, minutes of meeting dated 01.09.1962 and 19.03.1980 held under the chairmanship of Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab to show Sultan as tenant/allottee of the Society.
An application along with a copy of Register Haqdaran-e-Zamim for the year 1983-84 was also submitted in the chamber by the learned counsel for the respondents for summoning of record of Cooperative Farming Society pertaining to allotment of Balya and Sultan from Sahiwal and Khanewal which was refused because after reserving the judgments on 28.09.2015, there was no justification to hear or call for record in the absence of the other party.
5. Arguments considered and documents placed on record from both sides minutely perused. On 30.12.1993, the then District Collector, Sahiwal marked the application of Waryarn etc. For inheritance mutation of Balya to the C.A., Sahiwal with the following observations:- "Please examine in the light of Board of Revenue, Putilab instructions and submit the report".
' The C.A/Collector, Sahiwal heard the parties, where it was alleged that land in question was allotted to Sultan after its cancellation from the name of Balya and after death of Sultan, inheritance mutation was to be sanctioned in favour of his legal heirs. The CA/Collector examined the relevant record, and vide order dated 17041994 accorded permission under section 19(A) ibid to sanction mutation in favour of all legal heirs of original allottee, Balya according to Shariat Law.
There was no infirmity in the said order but on appeal, the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal vide impugned order committed an error in judgment while holding in the impugned order dated 30.06.2014 that order of CA/Collector, dated 17.04.1994 was passed reviewing the earlier order of his predecessor, dated 29.12,1993 without obtaining permission from the higher authority.
6. It is apparent from the bare reading of the order dated 17.04.1994 of the C.A/Collector, Sahiwal that he thoroughly examined the record and discussed the issue. Before arriving at the conclusion he categorically held in order dated 17.04.1994 that "his predecessor keeping in view the instructions of the Board of Revenue, Punjab accorded permission to sanction inheritance mutation in favour of legal heirs of the allottee, in which there is neither need of any alteration/change and Sehat nor any proceedings for review of the same. In the Rob/car (executing the ordly) name of Sultan (nominee) was written instead of original allottee, Balya.
After the decision of the Supreme Court, after the death of allottee, his inheritance should be devolved upon all his legal heirs under Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) Act, 1962.
Therefore, by making amendment through Sehat in Robkar executing order dated 30.12.1993, which was yet to be implemented, he accorded permission under section 19-A of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 to sanction inheritance mutation in favour of all legal heirs of original allottee Balya son of Muhammad". The learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal, vide impugned order, has wrongly interpreted the order of the C.A/Collector, Sahiwal holding the same as without jurisdiction. I see no infirmity in the order of the C.A/Collector, Sahiwal, dated 17.07.1994. Accordingly, it is held that order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal is not sustainable in the eyes of law, which is set aside by accepting the instant revision petition. Resultantly, Mutation No.694, dated 29.12.1993 in favour of legal heirs of Sultan is also set aside. Mutation No.747, sanctioned on 26.12.1994 on the basis of order of C.A/Collector, Sahiwal dated 17.07.1994 in favour of all legal heirs of original allottee, Balya is upheld.
7. The judgment in this case was reserved on 28.9.2015 while camping at Sahiwal and it is being announced today, which may be communicated to the respective parties through their counsel.