This is a revision petition against the order dated 24-11-1969 of the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur whereby he accepted the respondent's appeal regarding mutation of inheritance in village Lund, Taluka Faiz-Gunj, District Khairpur.
2. The facts of the case are that one Haji Saeed Khan Lashari died about 30 years back leaving behind five sons who are the petitioners, and four daughters, two of whom are respondents and the other two had not contested. The land held by the deceased stood in the name of sons only in the revenue record since 1952-53. In 1969 respondents Nos, 1 and 2 Nusrat approached the Collector for their shares in the property, who Hasan, rejected their request vide his order dated 24- 7-1969 on the Member ground that the matter was old and the petitioners were in possession of the land of the deceased according to revenue record. Respondents filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur, which was accepted by him vide the impugned order on the ground that the daughters had share in the property as per Muhammadan Law.
3. The case was heard on 22-10-1970 and 27-1-1971. Both the parties respectively urged the following points : Petitioners : (i)Saeed Khan Lashari had died 30 years back. He had 5 sons and 4 daughters. He had given compensation in cash and ornaments to the daughters at the time of their marriages in lieu of their shares in inheritance and the property left by Saeed Khan was, therefore, inherited by his four sons only and record was mutated in the names of the sons 30 years ago. It was not proper to set aside the entries on summary proceedings by the revenue authorities. The entries could be set aside only though a decree of civil Court.
(ii)In 1969, Rahimdino, husband of Mst. Basran, one of the daughters of Saeed Khan, applied for entry of the name of the daughters in the record-of-rights. The ladies had remained silent for 30 years.
(iii)The daughters had got their shares in the property during lifetime of Saeed Khan in cash and this fact had been confirmed by two of his daughters Mst. Bhana and Maryam in their statement dated 2-6-1969 before the Mukhtiarkar. The husband of Mst. Wasandi, one of the respondents had died and she had applied to the Chairman of Union Council for getting her some thing for her livelihood from the petitioners as her sons did not maintain her. According to settlement between them, the petitioners had given her 3 acres of land. Mst. Basran did not put forth her claim, if she had any at that time.
Respondents:
(i) It was not disputed that the ladies were not heirs or Saeed Khan. No statement had been given by the ladies giving up their rights in the property. The statement given by Msts. Bhana and Maryam surrendering their rights did not bind the respondents. Msts. Bhana and Maryam might be under the influence of the petitioners.
(ii) The order of the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur was in accordance with the provisions of Muhammadan Law.
(iii) The respondents had been receiving their due share from the petitioners till 1969 when the share was denied to them and they came to know that their names did not exist in the revenue record. They had, therefore, approached the revenue authorities for change in the record-of-rights so late.
(iv) Section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 excluded the jurisdiction of the civil Courts and it was not proper to refer the respondents who were pardanashin ladies, to seek their remedy in civil Court as held in Wazir Begum v. Mst. Noor Jahan Begum .
6. I have considered the arguments put forth by the parties and seen the record. Saeed Khan, the ancestor of both the parties, died about 30 years back. The khata of the land stood in the names of his four sons in equal shares in revenue record since 1952-53. The ladies came against the entries in 1969. The title over the land accrued to the respondents 30 years back, when Saeed Khan died.
According to section 135-C of the Sind Land Revenue Code, which was in force at that time, it was incumbent upon the ladies to have reported acquisition of their title to the revenue authorities at that time. There is nothing to show that the respondents have remained in possession of the land since the death of Saeed Khan. No Extraordinary circumstance rendering the entries in revenue record as palpably false has been established by the respondents. Under these circumstances, it was not proper for the revenue authorities to adjudicate upon the question, of title after lapse of so much time and to interfere with the entries in revenue record, which remained in force for so many years at such a late stage. As held in R. 0. R. No, 964 of 1964-65 decided on 25-9-1965 by Mr. I. U.
Khan, a former Member, of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue reported at page 577 of Revenue Rulings Vol. II, the proper course in such cases would be to direct the concerned party asserting rights contrary to the old entries in revenue record, to establish its rights in the civil Court. The order of the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur, directing that the respondents may be allowed share in the lands according to Muhammadan Law is not, therefore, proper in the circumstances of the case.
7. In view of the above facts, the revision petition is accepted and the order dated 24-11-1969 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur, is set aside. PLD 1961 Kar. 1651 1