CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J. Through this civil revision, the petitioners have challenged the validity of judgment and decree dated 19.11.2009 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Khushab who accepted the appeal of the respondents, set aside the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Khushab and decreed the suit for declaration filed by the respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents / plaintiffs filed suit for declaration against the petitioners/ defendants contending therein that suit property fully described in the headnote of the plaint was owned by Ghulam Jahan son of Nathu predecessor-in-interest of the parties of the lis who migrated from India to Pakistan and evacuee agricultural land was allotted to him in two villages i.e. Chinki Shumali and Mitha Tiwana; that the petitioners/defendants' predecessor Chujoo son of Ghulam Jahan died in India and Beesan son of Nathu died issueless in India; that as per custom the property was devolved on his widow Najeeban. After the death of Najeeban 1/4 share of her estate was transferred to her brother namely Hooji Remaining estate was transferred to real brother of Beesan namely Ghulam Jahan, who died in 1954 and his inheritance mutation No.190 was sanctioned on 06.01.1955. Likewise in revenue estate Chinki Shumali inheritance mutation No.28 dated- 13.04.1962 was sanctioned and the petitioners/defendants being grand-sons were given shares whereas Ghulam Jahan grand-father of the petitioners/defendants died in 1954 in India and Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance was promulgated in the year 1961, as such, petitioners/ defendants are not entitled to get inheritance from their grand-father, therefore, mutation Nos.190 and 28 were illegally incorporated to their extent in the revenue record. That at the time of death of Ghulam Jahan, his, two sons namely Feroze and Ghayas-ud-Din and a daughter namely Meejo only were alive. Respondents Nos.1 to 6/plaintiffs are legal heirs of Feroze whereas defendants Nos. 7 to 12 are legal heirs of Mst. Meejo. As Ghayas-ud-Din died issueless and respondents/plaintiffs are also his legal heirs.
Petitioners/defendants appeared and filed contesting written statement. As per divergent pleadings relevant issues were framed, pro and contra evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 02.04.2009 dismissed the suit for declaration of the respondents. Respondents filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.2009, set aside the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2009 and decreed their suit for declaration. Hence, this civil revision.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at full length and gone through the entire record with their able assistance.
4. Perusal of Mutation No.28 dated 13.05.1962 shows that it was directly incorporated in the names of the parties of the lis from Central Government whereas mutation No.190 dated 06.01.1955 also incorporated in the revenue record as an evacuee property. The jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of allotment of evacuee property is barred under sections 2 and 25 of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and even any decree if passed by the Civil Court, that would be without jurisdiction, nullity in the eyes of law or void ab-initio in its entirety. Reliance is placed on the case titled as Muhammad Sadiq (decd.) through L.Rs. and others v. Mushtaq and others (2011 SCMR 239) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- ".... There is no denial of the fact that the remedy before the Civil Court availed by the petitioners was clearly barred under section 41 of the Act, 1957 as well as under the provisions of sections 22 and 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Not only this, but the suit instituted by the petitioners was also hopelessly time barred, as the suit land was provisionally allotted to the respondents/ their ancestors in the years 1952/53, and thereafter the whole process gf such transfer in their favour was completed much before the repeal of the Settlement laws.
5. This being the correct factual and legal position, the order of rejection of plaint passed by the revisional court was based on proper application of relevant provisions of law, and thus unexceptionable. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, while examining the grievance of the petitioners, has rightly upheld the On dings of the revival Court against the petitioners regarding rejection of plaint in the suit, being barred under-above referred provisions of Act XII of 1957 and Act XLVII of 1958." In another case titled as Nasir Fahimuddin and others v. Charles Philips Mills and others (2017 SCMR 468), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held that civil court has no especially where no attempt had been made to challenge the PTDs before the concerned Settlement Authorities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled as Muhammad Saleem and others v. Sardar All and others (200 SCMR 1640) has resolved this controversy and settled that question of inheritance of deceased right holder was required to be decided under the relevant paragraphs of settlement scheme as such, the jurisdiction of the civil court in such matters is barred and only the settlement authorities have a jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter observed asunder: "11. It was a case decided by the Rehabilitation and Settlement Authorities under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme framed under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Laws about' the inheritance of a deceased right holder, therefore, was governed by these laws. According to section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court of general jurisdiction was barred to question the validity or otherwise of the orders passed by the Rehabilitation and Settlement Authorities in such matters. It has been held in the case of Ahmad Din v. Muhammad Shafi and others PLD 1971 SC 762 that the 'question of inheritance of deceased right holder was required to be decided under the relevant paragraphs of settlement scheme as such, was a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities and jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such matters was barred."
In another case titled as Ghulam Rasul and 5 others v. Jannat Bibi and 11 others (1990 SCMR 744) the Hon'ble Apex held as under:- "Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court who vide impugned judgment, dismissed the civil revision filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the District Judge. Faisalabad, who while accepting the appeal filed by the respondents, set aside the order and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Faisalabad in favour of the present petitioners on 7-5-1985, regarding the disputed property, the detailed facts of which are given in the plaint.
Primarily, the suit was barred by provisions of the special law governing such transfer and thus the suit property transferred to Hakim Ali and after the issuance of P.T.O. and P.T.D. in his name the last order passed on 24.9.1957 by the Settlement Authorities shall be deemed final. Even under section 25 of the said Act; the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to correct the orders of the Settlement Authority which ended in finality. The suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners was incompetent and therefore the order passed by the appellate Court has rightly been upheld by the High Court. The petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed."
Further reliance is placed on a latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited as Allah Rakha (deceased) through LRs. and others v. Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Gujranwala and others (2020 SCMR 502).
5. As the decision of the learned appellate court suffers from blatant mis-application of law and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law as such this Court is well within jurisdiction to reverse the illegal and perverse findings of the learned appellate court in its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Reliance is placed on the case titled as Nazim-ud-Din and others v. Sheikh Zia- ul-Qamar and others (2016 SCMR 24).
6. In view of above, this civil revision is allowed. Judgment and decree dated 02.04.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Khushab as well as judgment and decree dated 19.11.2009 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Khushab are hereby set aside as having been passed without lawful authority, jurisdiction and coram non-judice and same are set aside. Consequently plaint of suit shall be deemed to have been rejected being barred by law. No order as to cost.