' This writ petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order. 1981, calls in question the order dated 8th January, 1980 of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Lahore Division, as well as, the order dated 6th August, 1981 of the Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, in a matter relating to the inheritance of a limited onwer.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that Mst. Rajan was a claimant displaced person. She got the land, in dispute, in satisfaction of her claim for property abandoned by her in India which she claims to have inherited from her son Muhammad in India. On 19th February, 1965 a mutation was entered giving 1/4th share to her and 3/4th to her collaterals. She went in appeal to the Collector who allowed the appeal on 25th May, 1968 and declared Mst. Rajan to be the full owner. The petitioners are the purchasers for consideration from Mst. Rajan and a mutation No, 262, in their favour, was entered on 25th November, 1968. This order was not challenged before any proper forum uptil 28th September, 1974 when a miscellaneous application was moved by the contesting respondents, to review the mutation. This was rejected by the Assistant Collector by order dated 1st April, 1977 and appeal against it dismissed by the Collector (Consolidation), Kasur by order dated 26th June, 1978. On revision, the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, by order dated 8th January, 1980 remanded the case to the Collector Chunian for deciding the matter afresh after giving the parties ample opportunity of being heard, and considering their evidence. This order was upheld in second revision by the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, by order dated 6th August, 1981. Hence this constitutional petition.
3. Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the order dated 25th May, 1968 passed by the Collector in favour of Mst. Rajan had attained finality, in that, no revision was filed against this order and the matter was, therefore, hit by the doctrine of past and closed transaction. Learned counsel submitted that in the second round of litigation the Additional Commissioner and the Member Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to re-open the matter on the basis of miscellaneous application.
4. Kh. Muhammad Tufail, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submittedthat there is no jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders, whereby on remand the mutation was ordered to be re-examined in the light of Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties). Act (XXV of 1975). He emphasized that although the application was pre-mature at the time when it was filed but became matured during the pendency of its disposal by operation of law i. e. Act XXV of 1975.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents next contended that even if no application was made the mutation sanctioned in favour of Mst. Rajan who admittedly inherited the land as a limited owner stood rejected w,e,f, 31st December, 1962, by virtue of section 2 of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Doubts) Ordinance (IX of 1972).
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted in rebuttal that at the time of filing the miscellaneous application, for review of the mutation, no cause of action was available to the contesting respondents nor any forum was open to them to challenge the mutation which was a past and closed transaction.
7. The main controversy raised in this petition is settled by the Division Bench Authority of this Court reported as Muhammad Ibrahim and 2 others v. Province of Punjab and 15 others. It was held :- "In that respect the Provincial Legislature rose to the occasion and `for the removal of difficulties of the lawful heirs of last male holders in respect of limited estates held by refugee females and to protect their rights with respect to the said property", and also considering it as expedient to extend the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan to the persons aggrieved by the "earlier, erroneous view", on the subject on 31st March, 1975, promulgated the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act XXV of 1975 which was retrospective with effect from 15th March, 1948-(the date when Custom as a rule of succession was abolished and was substituted by Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (IX of 1948)-indicating that the persons aggrieved from the earlier erroneous decisions of old cases which may have become final and in which no appeals may have been filed would also be eligible to avail of the correct law on the subject by filing necessary applications and having recourse to the remedies provided in the Punjab Act XXV of 1975. It is well settled that when a Court interprets a particular section or a provision of a statute, then that interpretation is supposed to be in existence right from the time and date when that section or provision was enacted and from that point of view when the Supreme Court gave interpretation of the law on the subject, then obviously it was supposed to be in existence right from the beginning of the relevant law or statute interpreted by the Supreme Court."
8. Resppectfully following the ratio laid down in the precedent case, I hold that notwithstanding the finality of the order dated 25th May, 1968 A of the Collector, the contesting respondents were competent to call I question the mutation sanctioned in favour of Mst. Rajan by filing necessary application in terms of sections 2 and 3 of Act XXV of 1975.
9. It is true that the application made by the contesting respondent to review the mutation was premature at the time of its filing, but th contesting respondents acquired the right under the said Act to challenge it during the pendency of the proceedings before the Assistant Collector. The cause of action thus matured and the objection as to prematur application ceased to be valid. The Assistant Collector failed to advert t the law laid down in Act XXV of 1975. The miscellaneous1 application ought to have been treated as an application for all intents an purposes in terms of section 3 of the Act. This view finds support from the dictum laid down in Mst. Amina Begum and others v. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir, wherein it was held, "the forums acting under the Rent Restriction law were not, in the exercise of discretion vested in them, precluded to take note of events taking place during the course of proceedings after the institution of an ejectment petition so as to suitably could the relief on the basis of the altered circumstances in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and shorten the proceedings." It was also observed that a party should not be compelled to withdraw a petition on the technical ground of cause of action not having matured at the time it was filed so that it may be filed again, would not advance the interest of justice. The same view was reiterated in Raja Muhammad and 11 others v. Haji Muhammad Zareen and 3 others.
10. Be that as it may, prior to the promulgation of Act XXV of 1975, the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Doubts) Ordinance, 1972, was in existence with retrospective effect from 31st December, 1962. In terms of section 2 of the said Ordinance, the limited estates in respect of immovable property held by Muslim females under the Customary Law are deemed to have been terminated w,e,f, 31st December, 1962, notwithstanding earlier contrary decisions regarding applicability of rule of custom to succession by any decree, judgment o order of any Court or other authority. Subsection (2) of section 2 of the Ordinance specifically declared earlier contrary decisions which were inconsistent with the provisions of subsection (1) of section 2 of no legal effect. Such suits, appeals or other proceedings were required to be decided afresh, on the application of any person affected by such decree, judgment or order. No time limit was fixed for making such an application. This provision of law was also not adverted to by the Collector who earlier allowed the appeal of Mst. Rajan on 15th May, 1968. This order was non-existent in the eye of law and of no legal effect. No exception can, therefore, be take to the impugned orders whereby the miscellaneous application filed b the contesting respondents was rightly treated as one under the provisions o Act XXV of 1975.
11. The order is manifestly just and in accordance with law, ing no interference in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to D costs. The parties are directed to appear before the A. C./Collector,i Chunian, on 20th April.
1983. PLD 1977 Lah. 399 PLD 1978 SC 220 1980 SCM R 339